BREAKING: Concealed Carry Holder Stopped Las Vegas Shooters from Continuing Killing Spree

Screen Shot 2014-06-09 at 3.37.41 PM

Shannon Watts believes that a good guy with a gun has never stopped a bad guy with a gun, but it looks like the events this weekend in Las Vegas have proven her wrong. After killing two police officers in a chain pizza restaurant, the murderers then made their way to a nearby Wal-Mart. Before they were able to enter the store, a citizen named Joseph Robert Wilcox, who was legally carrying a concealed handgun, confronted the murderers. From the Review Journal . . .

After the shooting, the couple headed toward a nearby Wal-Mart, where Jerad Miller was confronted by Joseph Robert Wilcox, 31, of Las Vegas. Wilcox was legally carrying a concealed pistol. Wilcox was unaware that Amanda Miller, who was pushing a shopping cart, was involved in the incident and “lying in wait,” the official said.

She slipped behind Wilcox and shot him at close range.

“He had no idea the wife was walking behind him,” the police official said of the murdered man. “This guy (Wilcox) was not some idiot with a gun. To me, he was a hero. He was trying to stop an active shooter.”

Police said this morning that Wilcox was killed without firing a shot.

After that confrontation, the two murderers killed themselves.

Reports indicate that the two murderers had plans to move to secondary sites and continue their killing spree, but as we’ve seen time and again with active shooter situations the individuals involved immediately give up as soon as they are confronted by an armed opposition. It is tragic that Wilcox had to give his life to stop these two murderers, but there’s no doubt that his actions saved countless lives.

avatar

About Nick Leghorn

Nick Leghorn is a gun nerd living and working in San Antonio, Texas. In his free time, he's a competition shooter (USPSA, 3-gun and NRA High Power), aspiring pilot, and enjoys mixing statistics and science with firearms. Now on sale: Getting Started with Firearms by yours truly!

439 Responses to BREAKING: Concealed Carry Holder Stopped Las Vegas Shooters from Continuing Killing Spree

  1. avatarJames R says:

    I don’t know, from what I’ve read it seems questionable that he was actually the cause of them stopping… Heroic effort though regardless

    • avatarrosignol says:

      Dunno. The track record on active shooters seems to be that they usually suicide as soon as they encounter armed resistance.

      • avatarStinkeye says:

        Yes, but according to the earlier story, “The couple exchanged gunfire with police as they pursued them into the store…” Might that armed resistance be more likely to have prompted the suicide than Wilcox’s unfortunately unsuccessful intervention?

        • avatarDoug says:

          So many of these posts, even on TTAG, don’t even sound like the same event. First posts, these was a legally-armed citizen killed in the Wal-Mart. This am, none of the posts mentioned him, but did mention a woman also killed outside the Wal-Mart. Now, th e armed citizen is back, ad no mention of the woman killed. Whoa, the fog of war is heavy on this event.

    • avatarHannibal says:

      Yeah, there’s no reason to believe he stopped them at all. They didn’t stop until someone started throwing lead at them.

      That doesn’t diminish his bravery, though.

    • It was reported that one of the officesr got off some shots in the pizza restaurant. Was there more information that contradicted that account? If not then the armed individual in Walmart wasn’t the first armed person they encountered.

      IMHO, the more accurate message would be that it’s immoral to disarm people by law because it strips them of the ability to defend against these events and still remain law abiding.

    • avatarYossarian says:

      Wilcox wasn’t their target, though, the police were. This was a case of “Us” vs. “Them”. These two would have killed a bazillion police without remorse.

      But by killing Wilcox, they killed one of their own – In so much as they would have considered an armed citizen as a non-sheeplike and thereby honorable person.

      I think they were still capable of some guilt. I think it was Wilcox who stopped them.

      • avatarStinkeye says:

        That seems pretty doubtful. These two were rabid dogs who had just murdered two cops in cold blood in front of a restaurant full of people. The idea that they were overcome with remorse about shooting Wilcox just doesn’t seem very believable to me.

        • avatarAJ187 says:

          Cowards like koolaid guzzler and cowboy will never be remembered for anything so they have to sully the memory of a man to appease their personal egos. Truly pathetic……

      • avatarrob says:

        These killers were left wing meth users who had videos of themselves attending anon rallies on their Facebook page. Other then not trusting the government it would seem they have little in common with the guy that tried to stop the shooting.

        • avatarJoe says:

          Calling them “left wing” is an insanely disingenuous lie.
          ALL evidence is that these were DYED in the wool, tea-party, anti-government, PRO-Cliven-Bundy, far-right, conspiracy nuts. I don’t doubt they were a bit crazy, but MOSTLY they were ideologically driven by far-right crap (from “Obama wants our guns” to “The new world order is taking over”).
          Most shooters/domestic terrorists are either just insane, disgruntled employees, or are far-right (from Tim McVeigh to Wade Michael Page to Bruce Turnidge to whomever) of whom many are anti-abortion nuts as well.

      • avatarben jarvis says:

        “I think it was Wilcox who stopped them.” then you’re as delusional as leghorn. for god’s sake stop feeding & parroting the NRA party line. truth & reality means nothing to you gun nuts, even in the wake of repeated gun tragedies. there’s a reason the NRA touts the mantra of “only good guys with guns can stop bad guys with guns” but never advises the good guy on how to do threat assessment to determine the appropriate response, including fleeing the scene with or without a gun in your possession. mr. wilcox died because bravado trumped common sense; because he, like you/leghorn, have been indoctrinated to believe that might makes right in civil society; that carrying a gun insures one’s safety; that more guns are the panacea to gun violence. the reason & the truth is the NRA doesn’t care about guys like wilcox. their one and only interest is in being an effective mouthpiece for the firearms industry to insure ever growing arms sales. moreover, the irony of all ironies is that if/when you or leghorn ever find yourselves in wilcox’s situation, i doubt that you would be as brave as he.

    • avatarBarstow Cowboy says:

      This is exactly why I don’t shoot spree killers in front of WalMart anymore.

    • avatarJoe says:

      Yeah, this article JUST further proves Shannon Watts’ belief (that a good guy with a gun has never stopped a bad guy with a gun). While I think he/she is wrong, this incident is CERTAINLY not an example of a good guy stopping a bad guy.

      I haven’t seen evidence in ANY of the reports that he even DREW his gun…he CERTAINLY doesn’t appear to have used it. He told his friend he was going to “confront” the shooter (which may mean “talk to him”), and then either let down his guard, got too focused on the shooter, or whatever–but he didn’t notice that there was a young woman behind him who was not running scared. This is a really bad self-contradictory article.

  2. avatarMichael B. says:

    I don’t mean to be Debbie Downer here but how can we be sure “there’s no doubt that his actions saved countless lives”?

    His heart was in the right place but it seems like he got shot from behind and that was all she wrote.

    Furthermore, it’d be nice if you threw up a picture of Wilcox instead of the two scumbag murderers.

    • avatarDefens says:

      Your question is easy to answer, using the same logic as, “With smaller capacity magazine clips and shoulder thingies that don’t go up, countless lives will be saved.”

      We can’t prove a thing, but can sure claim credit for the act. Which, successful enough, was heroic – although shooting said scumbags from cover would perhaps have been an intervention with a much happier outcome.

  3. avatarRob Aught says:

    I don’t get these whackos, yet this does happen everytime. As soon as armed resistance shows up, they off themselves. Even if they have the opposition outgunned. (Clackmas, anyone?)

    Shame about Mr. Wilcox. I admire his willingness to do the right thing. Not worth losing his life over, but I don’t disagree that his actions probably ended their spree early.

  4. avatarKevin L says:

    I agree, put up a picture of Wilcox instead of the scumbags please.

  5. avatarNine says:

    An interesting chain of events and facts.

    Most certainly they’ll be glossed over by the Antis.

  6. avatarpat says:

    I think a possible lesson we can draw from this is if you witness a spree killing,

    1) Do not give the perpetrator an opportunity to “give up” or “surrender”. Immediately engage him/her with your weapon upon first opportunity.

    2) After or during the accomplishment of #1, immediately move and find cover. This could both protect you from return fire from the assailant, and can also give you time to potentially recognize if there are additional assailants.

    That said, the man is a hero and his selfless sacrifice may have very well saved lives at the cost of his own. Bravery at its finest. Here’s a toast…

    • avatarJoelT says:

      I think you’d want to find cover and assess the situation before you open fire. If nothing else just to follow the “know your target and what’s behind it rule.” Only if cover isn’t immediately available or other considerations demand immediacy should you act first.

      • avatarArdent says:

        Back stops are for snipers who can fire or not at leisure. When you face a lethal threat at pistol ranges, fire, the backstop be damned.

        • avatarJohn in AK says:

          No, you don’t. That is, if you have the ethics and morals that make you different from a criminal, you don’t.

    • avatarB says:

      Wasn’t that one of the lessons from the first person training series? “Why didn’t you just shoot instead of alerting them?” And watch for the lookout.

    • avatarCarry.45 says:

      (Swigs beer)
      I’d also add that it gives you a cover from police until you can tell them that you’re the good guy.

  7. avatarJPD says:

    While we are on the subject. Posting their pictures? Publishing their names? Instead of the media fame we extend to these losers, how about just initials? Or better yet ” two rabid sub-humans” as a more accurate description?

  8. Bull! Good people don’t exist!

  9. avatarPatrick Downs says:

    “She slipped behind Wilcox and shot him at close range” — This might be the biggest danger to good guys with guns taking action. Even off duty cops are in similar danger. I remember in LA when an off-duty LAPD (iirc) officer was in the checkout at the grocery, on his way to a BBQ, when a robbery went down ahead of him. He began to draw his pistol from his fanny pack, not knowing that there was robber #2 behind him in line. The robber shot him in the back of the head, killing him.

  10. avatarBob Wall says:

    Let’s just let those two just rot out in the Nevada sun to fulfill their destiny – buzzard bait.

    Still waiting for the outcry from family members about how they were such nice kids, and how it was something other than individual responsibility that caused them to do what they did.

  11. avatarkenshinx says:

    What’s wrong with some of you people? Wasted his life? You sound like anti-gunners and cowards. This man was a hero and knew the risks of drawing and not hiding like timid mouse and I do think that the sight of a gun brought these 2 cowards back to reality and they committed suicide because it wasn’t fish in a barrel anymore.

    • avatarthe ruester says:

      ^This^

      One of their favorite lines is that we are all just playing cowboy, and would shrink from the moment should we ever actually need to draw. This shines a HUGE light on that lie.

      “Why would you deny me the ability to risk my life to save others, like the Las Vegas Hero, Joseph Wilcox!”

      • avatardead cowboy gun nut says:

        The typical hero complex with a gun. Do you watch a lot of movies? The guy couldn’t even save his own life with his gun, how in the hell do you get he saved lives?

        • avatarGunGuyInNC says:

          Since the shooters tactical advantage was now gone (the woman having revealed herself), and they could not flee (via a door blocked by a cop car), they chose to dig in in the auto department, the fact remains that they only people to die after Joseph Robert Wilcox intervened were the shooters (in a murder/suicide pact). Unless the Wal-Mart cameras also have audio we might never know if Joseph Robert Wilcox actions caused the shooters to change their plans or not, but the facts are no other innocents died after Joseph Robert Wilcox engaged.

      • avatarBarstow Cowboy says:

        So this is what you’re going to hold up as a case of a good guy with a gun stopping a bad guy with a gun? This is your counter argument to antis who say that armed citizens are most likely to either wind up being completely ineffective in stopping a spree killer or making the situation worse with their poor judgement? If this guy was a cop and he’d taken the same action and met the same fate people on this board would be crowing from the rooftops about how poorly trained he was and would be using this event as proof that cops are inept and unable to protect us any better than we can protect ourselves. I’m not saying the guy was wrong, I wasn’t there and don’t know anything besides what’s on the news, but even with that little bit of information it’s clear to me that whatever Wilcox’s intentions were, getting shot in the back and dying probably wasn’t in his plan. This is not a win for people who argue in favor of armed citizens as an effective defense against spree killers.

    • avatarBradN says:

      Exactly. If I were killed in a similar manner I would consider it to be a “good death”. It’s better than cowering under a table in the fetal position hoping you won’t get slaughtered. If I have to get taken out, this is how I would like it to be.

    • avatardead cowboy gun nut says:

      I seriously doubt the shooters saw hero wannabe’s big bad gun and decided to kill themselves. They had already posted online about the suicide pact they made together once they committed to shooting some police.

      • avatarYellow Devil says:

        Then they would have ended it right there at Cici’s instead of taking it to Walmart if they planned on suicide. No they were planning to do more and it’s obvious the armed citizen changed their plan. It’s obvious that you have some mental condition where you believe everyone in life is better off curling up into a defensive ball while sucking their thumb in the face of evil. By all means go ahead and do that, I won’t judge you.

    • avatarben jarvis says:

      “I do think that the sight of a gun brought these 2 cowards back to reality and they committed suicide because it wasn’t fish in a barrel anymore.” determined to fulfill your gun nut fantasies are you?

  12. avatarAccur81 says:

    Posted on my FB.

    Carry off-duty, and take out the BG at the 1st legitimate opportunity. My condolensces to the family of this hero. I respect his courage.

  13. avatarRalph says:

    Remember Joe Wilcox.

    Lessons learned — shoot fast and watch your six.

    • avatarDefens says:

      Similar thing happened at the Tacoma Mall shooting a few years back. Good guy with a gun intervened with an active shooter with a verbal command to “Drop the gun!”, rather than a ballistic command to “Lie down and bleed.” The result was that the good guy is now crippled for life.

      As private citizens, we are under no obligation to take an active shooter into custody. Their first notice that someone has engaged them should be that the lights suddenly became dim.

      • avatarWilliam Burke says:

        I hear that. When defending the precious gift of human life, don’t forget about your own. If you can.

      • avatarChuck in IL says:

        When it’s time to draw, it’s time to shoot. When it’s time to shoot, it’s time to kill. There really is no other reason to draw your weapon.

    • avatarMichael B. says:

      +1

    • avatarJoelT says:

      The article mentions that he moved to get closer, I wonder if he was carrying a .22 Mini-revolver, or a derringer, something that is more point blank and wanted to make sure he could hit the person?

      EDIT:
      I read AN article that mention that he was trying to get closer, I don’t recall where I read it at the moment. Might have miss heard.

    • avatarCLarson says:

      Sage advice. Who shoots first lives.

      • avatarWilliam Burke says:

        One can only hope.

      • avatarBarstow Cowboy says:

        …what if in your rush to shoot first you wind up shooting another “good guy” who himself was just trying to shoot the spree killer? What if after this happens the spree killer notices you and shoots at you, and then you shoot him, but not before someone who can’t see the spree killer only sees you shooting, misidentifies YOU as a spree killer, and then you get shot and killed by another well intentioned “sheep dog”?

        • avatarben jarvis says:

          all the ways one can get killed carrying a gun, scenarios the NRA never talks about when spouting their mantra of “only good guys with guns can stop bad guys with guns.” ever wonder why?

    • avatardead cowboy gun nut says:

      Lesson learned don’t assume there is only one shooter, otherwise, you end up dead with your gun laying by your side.

  14. avatarDev says:

    Joseph Robert Wilcox is a hero, that’s for sure. Even though he was murdered, he felt it was his duty as a human being and an armed citizen to try and stop something really bad from happening.

    • avatarben jarvis says:

      he would have been a hero had he succeeded in stopping or impeding the killers through effective action. ineffective “heroes” are of no consequence, just ask the NRA.

  15. avatarJeffR says:

    This won’t stop them from marching on with this story. Unless a concealed carry holder shoots a mass shooter dead — after the mass shooter reaches the matching number of 4 to qualify as a mass shooting — they will not accept that a concealed carrier can stop a mass shooting. Even then, they probably will complain that the concealed carry holder had other options available and did not need to shoot the guy.

    • avatarWilliam Burke says:

      You don’t get it yet. That doesn’t do it. They’ll just ignore the story if it runs counter to the narrative. Miz Watts has studied her Edward Bernays well! Either one of ‘em would have done PR for Lucifer or Beelzebub, if the money had been right….

      • avatarGun_Chris says:

        I think they’d run with it, they can use the old damned if you do, damned if you don’t.
        - If the body count doesn’t reach 4 then a mass shooting wasn’t stopped.
        - If the body count does reach 4, then it is by definition a mass shooting, and the concealed carrier was unable to stop it.

      • avatarben jarvis says:

        “They’ll just ignore the story if it runs counter to the narrative.” or misrepresent it as leghorn has done.

    • avatardead cowboy gun nut says:

      Explain why there was only one “conceal carrier” who drew their gun at one of the shooters. Where was the poor saps fellow “conceal carriers”? Oh wait, see it doesn’t matter based on fight or flight, most humans will go the flight mode when it comes to a life and death situation.

      • avatarYellow Devil says:

        It’s called individual Liberty, it is up to the individual to decide if they want or need to conceal carry or not. We are not going to force everyone else to arm themselves. Obviously he was the only one in the immediate vicinity that exercised that right. But at the same time I’m not going to let you dictate to me how I engage evil when it happens. Do the rest of us a favor next time and either lead, follow or get the hell out of the way.

    • avatarben jarvis says:

      “they will not accept that a concealed carrier can stop a mass shooting.” just because you say so doesn’t make it so. where’s the evidence that it ever happened? on the other hand, there’s plenty of evidence and statistics (something leghorn boasts to having knowledge about) to show it doesn’t work. but you gun zealots will go to your grave living the lie the NRA has created.

  16. avatarSabrewolfe says:

    May Mr. Wilcox dine well in Valhalla tonight. Whatever his failings may have been in life, he died defending others. Let us raise a glass to our fallen brother.

  17. avatarDarren says:

    Situational awareness is a bitch…and so was that woman. No criticism from me, it’s hard to NOT focus on the guy displaying a gun. Reports I have seen indicate that she started the fracas by shooting one of the cops in the back of the head while he was refilling his soda. If so, she killed at least one police officer and this guy, as well as shooting her husband. Despite the guy posting his ‘manifesto’, I think we need to look more carefully at who was doing the killing here. Sounds a lot like she was the driving force.

    Agree re: picture, I don’t need to know any more about these skin tags on society. Put up a picture of a hand making a draw from concealment or something.

    Also makes me wonder…if you see a guy in cammies waving a gun in a Walmart parking lot and making threats, is there a duty to warn? Or do you just meekly wait until he passes and shoot him in the back?

    In Texas, you do not have a duty to warn or try to disarm. My bias is to get out of the way and shoot from cover. Yet another reason the Open Carry Texas folks are not people I want to see, if I see you waving an AR around with a mag in place my bias is to consider you a hair’s breadth from a deadly threat…with all that entails.

    Mr. Wilcox tried. God bless him and his family.

    • avatarSabrewolfe says:

      It occurs to me, if we could set up a donation drive to help out the Wilcox family with the cost of his funeral and such, that would be a great way to honor the man’s sacrifice.

      • avatarneiowa says:

        How does one get the “Patriot Riders” to a funeral?

      • avatarDev says:

        There’s been some talk about that on some other forums I read. If anything comes out of it I’ll find out if it’s ok with both the people starting it and and the guys here at TTAG to share that information.

    • avatarWilliam Burke says:

      It’s my understanding that Jerad was dressed as the Joker, whilst Amanda was dressed as Harlequin, another tricksterish character from Tristano Martinelli’s “Commedia dell-arte”.

      The trickster card is coming into heavy rotation…. this is, by count, the 4th Batman-themed mass shooting.

  18. Lesson: life is a 360° range.

    If the pepper spray guy in Seattle is a hero, then so is Wilcox.

    Ask the family’s permission before putting up the photo, but do post his picture.

  19. avatarCarlosT says:

    “Do you really need a gun just to go to Walmart?”

    Yes. Yes, I do.

  20. avatarEd Cardoza says:

    Very sad for Mr. Wilcox and his family. It also reminds me of something I was told by my instructor in the very first handgun class I took – If you’re armed and decide to confront the bad guy, be advised that the bad guy might not be alone.

    I don’t want to see Mr. Wilcox used as an example of anything by anybody, other than as a good citizen trying to do the right thing.

    • avatar45acp says:

      The lesson that my instructor told us is:

      “If there’s one, there’s two. If there’s two, there’s three. If there’s three, then there’s a whole lot more of them.”

      • avatarben jarvis says:

        so the logical conclusion drawn from that sequence would be “what’s the use of carrying a gun”?

  21. avatarkoolaidguzzler says:

    That report is not what about four sources I just read said — that “good guy with a gun” Joe Wilcox started to intervene, the girl killed him before Wilcox could shoot, then both killers continued on with their mission, and did not shoot themselves until confronted by a police active shooter team minutes later.
    In other words, that CCW “good guy” was at best, a speed bump. It barely slowed the killers down, and definitely did not disrupt their mission. The police disrupted the killers.

    • avatarMichael B. says:

      WTF is with the quotation marks around good guy?

      Trying to stop these nutcases was the moral thing to do.

      Robert and Nick, are we having an influx of MDA trolls around here?

      • avatarkoolaidguzzler says:

        What makes you know a guy is good just because he has a ccw?
        Besides wishful thinking and groupthink?

        • avatarDev says:

          Uh, think for a second. This man who had a gun felt it was his duty to confront an armed assailant barging into Walmart. Instead of running he decided he needed to risk his life to try and save other people. That’s the definition of a good man.

        • avatarAMOK! says:

          Wilcox was fighting the good fight. You are flat wrong in your analysis. Take personal responsibility and own it.

        • avatarRoscoe says:

          @ koolaid…
          And what makes you so certain your “about four sources” are accurate, besides “wishful thinking”?

        • avatarSabrewolfe says:

          You mean besides the fact that CHCL holders are statistically the most law abiding group of people there is? How about the simple fact that he stepped up to try and stop a bad guy when it would have been easier and likely safer to run away like everyone else. That pretty much sums up “good guy” to me.

      • avatarWilliam Burke says:

        Congratulations. It’s true.

    • avatarDyspeptic Gunsmith says:

      Yea, that’s one way to read it.

      Another way is to consider what the two morons were thinking. Here they are, headed into a Wally World, and they meet someone who isn’t a cop who has a gun.

      I wonder if they were expecting that. I’ll wager not. And I further wonder what they were thinking after they shot Mr. Wilcox – “we got the one-in-a-million” or “how many more people are there like this here?”

      The lesson that can be drawn here for people who would insert themselves into these types of situations is this: Women aren’t blameless. The DC sniper situation showed up that it isn’t always just the white male, and the Santa Barbara situation shows us it isn’t always just the ugly/homely looking guy, etc.

      Mr. Wilcox tried to do the right thing. For his effort, he was shot in the back – just as the trained LEO’s were.

      • avatarkoolaidguzzler says:

        NV is a shall issue state. It leads the nation in gun duels, depending on how one measures it. And the epicenter of NV gunfighting is Las Vegas, not Reno. This state is swarming with concealed carriers. And at wal-mart? Likely even moreso. So it’s very doubtful the killers counted on not running into ccw carriers. I think they didn’t care if they did. And one could say that their tactics, with the girl laying back, reinforced that theory.Arguably, they expected resistance, and planned for it.

        • avatarDev says:

          Wow, that’s one heck of an imagination you have there! Care to provide some statistics that back up your claims? Especially since I’m sure you don’t live in Nevada.

        • This, So it’s very doubtful the killers counted on not running into ccw carriers. I think they didn’t care if they did. And one could say that their tactics, with the girl laying back, reinforced that theory.Arguably, they expected resistance, and planned for it. is about the only assertion with which I can agree from your comment. It looks to me that they might have planned on the man in front a few paces with her covering his six.

        • avatarWilliam Burke says:

          “Gun duels”? “Gunfighting”? What year do you think this is, gun-grabber?

          Maybe you were imagining yourself as a city slicker in Virginia City, not LV.

    • avatarDev says:

      Dude, think for a second. Mr. Wilcox DID slow them down. They had to worry about someone with a gun before they could go shooting other innocent people. This hero’s actions provided enough time for the police to respond and corner the murderers.

    • avatarJonathan - Houston says:

      Most of the early reports reported identically, as in verbatim. That means they’re all not only using the same source, they’re all using the same secondary source. That’s hardly multiple independent reviews of the events arriving at the same conclusion as you suggest by mentioning four suposed sources you’ve read. That’s an echo chamber, not conclusivity.

    • avatarneiowa says:

      oooooh An “active shooter team” Tells us more about “active shooter team”. That has to be way more equal than a citizen. Did they have an MRAP? Did they shoot the bad guys? play with their nifty toys?

      Sounds to me like Koolaid.from a police fanboy?

      I’ll award the medals to the citizen.

    • avatarint19h says:

      Quite honestly, it doesn’t matter. He stood up and fought, fulfilling his civic duty of an armed man in a middle of a slaughter of innocents to the greatest extent possible. Even if he didn’t manage to make a single shot, the fact that he tried to do so is sufficient in and of itself.

    • avatarArdent says:

      What are you doing out? Back under your bridge! Go on! Get back under there!

  22. avatarLongBeach says:

    Shannon Watts: you were saying?

    It’s a damn shame this man died, but he acted as best he could in an attempt to do the right thing. This is what gun owners choose, not to own/carry a gun because it is a death ray, but because it is a tool that best prepares you to deal with a very F’d situation. I truly wish it had worked out better for him.

  23. avatarkoolaidguzzler says:

    Let this be a lesson to all those ccw carriers who fantasize about saving the world — when your life or family’s lives are not in immediate danger, think thrice about trying to play Jack Bauer. Unless you have a background similar to Jack Bauer. And yes, Jack Bauer is fiction. Get it?
    And I haven’t even mentioned the legal aspects when your hero plans don’t work out perfectly.

    • avatarDev says:

      How do you know he didn’t have family in the store with him at the time? We don’t have that information available to us yet. Joseph Wilcox did the right thing.

      • avatarkoolaidguzzler says:

        “Maybe” he did.
        And maybe he could have run ahead of them to get his family out of the way.
        But he chose to engage. And if he had a family in there, they lost a husband, father, and perhaps breadwinner.
        People can be heroes without sacrificing their lives for their survivors to suffer.
        Im just guessing here, but I suspect the family would prefer a living “coward,” to a dead “hero.” Wilcox appeared to have choices. He probably chose poorly.

        • avatarDev says:

          He chose wisely, the result ended up poorly. There’s a difference there.

        • avatarRoscoe says:

          Well, it IS Monday morning (or afternoon), isn’t it…

          While I can appreciate your defensive stance strategy Koolaid, neither you, nor any of the rest of us, were there, in Wilcox’ shoes, making snap decisions.

        • avatarJonathan - Houston says:

          Not buying it. These are two killers who had just assassinated two peace officers. One of these killers had already fired a shot inside the Walmart. Wilcox instinctively perceived the deadly threat and rightly engaged the killer because there was no real choice. The only possible choice was to delay possibly for a moment more the instant of his death by wavering and cowering before evil, which is no choice at all. He had to act.

        • avatarWilliam Burke says:

          What did you read about his “family” being in there? Methinks your Kool-ade has STP innit.

    • avatarCLarson says:

      Actually the lessons I am taking from this is that you have to assume active shooters don’t care if they live or die. Don’t try confrontation, just act to stop the threat. Use every advantage no matter how questionable, such as shooting from behind, from concealment, or when they are reloading. The first threat has to be out of the fight permanently because you have to assume there are others. Time to take more training.

    • avatarArdent says:

      Damn, are you loose again? I have to build a fence around that bridge!

    • avatarWilliam Burke says:

      Bite me.

  24. avatarFoRealz? says:

    Well that is a shame about Mr. Wilcox. Hopefully there will be some kind of memorial fund for his family and those of the officers, and people can give a little to help them through this time.

    • avatarAFIraqVet says:

      I’m not seeing anything like that so far, but there absolutely should be.

      What say you, RF and TTAG staff?

      • avatarben jarvis says:

        don’t expect a reply from them, leghorn, or most commentators. their lionizing of wilcox doesn’t extend that far.

  25. avatarMk10108 says:

    Robert,

    Time to Push hard on Shannon’s declaration. Right up there with Everytown Facebook screw up, bring it home and show just how far from reality the whole MOM organization is.

  26. avatarthe ruester says:

    My theory;

    They took over the walmart so they could set up ambushes for the cops. The idea here was as many dead cops as possible, so they needed this gimmick, setting up kill zones inside the store because they knew the police would have no choice but to enter at some point. This plan changed quickly when Joe Wilcox came into the picture;

    “holy shit, Mallory, what if there are more like him?”

    “…I love you, Mickey!”

    BOOM

    • That’s what I’ve also been thinking. IMHO, they were making a last stand at Walmart with the intention of killing as many cops as possible while hoping that the “revolution” begins outside. Also, there’s food, ammo, camping supplies, firearms, and pharmacy under one roof. At some of these Walmarts, the camping, first aid kits, firearms, and ammunition are together in a back corner of the store.

      • avatarWilliam Burke says:

        The entire thing reeks of mind control. Again. Like the Aurora shooter, who was a PhD. candidate at the U. of Denver, in a (I quote) “mind-brain interface program”!

    • avatarben jarvis says:

      your theory? don’t let the facts get in the way.

  27. avatarkoolaidguzzler says:

    There may be another, non-gun related issue.
    At least two sources allegedly say that the killers announced they were leaving “to kill cops” to at least one of their neighbors.
    If true, why didn’t the neighbors report that to the FBI or police?

  28. avatartsar says:

    If they were going on a killing spree why didn’t they just shoot up the pizzeria?

    My point is that nobody yet knows what these people were going to do next.

    • IMHO, it is because they were going after agents of government only. When they entered Walmart, they shot a person at the front of the store but announced, “Everyone out!” Going towards the back of the store, they told one employee not to run but didn’t interfere with him and others leaving the store. This all, of course, is from news reports so the information might not be correct.

    • avatarDana Scully says:

      They wanted to kill cops. The pizza place would have made them sitting ducks. A Walmart would be a nightmare for police to clear… you’d need a small army.

      • avatarModel 31 says:

        The police had a small army to deploy. Walmart would be hard to defend from outside force. At least three main wide open entrances on the front, freight receiving doors in the rear and fire exits on all sides. Those buildings are made for rapid mass egress. Far too many points for two shyt head losers to defend from tact’d up urban warriors. They are done once the police get there in large numbers. It would only take one person on a 911 call to quietly let them in a back or side door. Not to mention the camera system a manager locked in an office would use to relay info to the dispatcher. It wouldn’t be like the movies but “there is one in the garden center and another in frozen foods” would be useful.

        • avatarHannibal says:

          That’s not the point. They didn’t care about ‘holding’ territory, they wanted to kill people. Sure, the police can get into the Walmart… but they’d be targets for someone using hit and run tactics.

          Luckily these two were cowards, like many, who folded when they faced resistance.

      • avatarben jarvis says:

        “you’d need a small army.” but leghorn would have you believe wilcox did it alone.

  29. avatarKCK says:

    No matter what you may think the situation, and the counless times we read it here, the perps were aided by Wilcox’ tunnel vision and the women used it to his end.
    It probably would have got most of us. But he tried.

  30. avatardisthunder says:

    Well, at least he walked the walk. A lot of guys would’ve rather have regretted their inaction for the rest of their lives, this guy decided to at least try.
    The best we can do is honor his effort by being more vigilant and more practiced. At the end of the day, bad guys are always going to try to kill the good guys. Best wreck can do is stack the deck as much as we can before that happens.

  31. avatarST says:

    I don’t like posting this. But it must be said, in the interest of promoting the truth, that the brave man who stood up to the scum made some poor tactical choices.

    One, confronting an unknown number of assailants. Some of you might be of the mind that the ethical concerns of stopping a mass shooter ovveride that fact. My response is that it’s cold comfort to our family members. Just because we go about our day armed doesn’t make us John McClaine .We’re just ordinary people with firearms intended for use to defend OURSELVES. That’s a different mission then interdicting mass murders with ammunition and advance planning.

    Two: unless the bad guy with the rifle is directly in your way to the exit or is trying to directly kill you, it’s best to leave the scene. As this tragic case illustrates, just because we may be armed with a handgun doesn’t mean we can stop a mass shooter any more then the unarmed folks about us.

    “Bullpucky! I’ve got a gun and they don’t!”

    And? Even if you went into the situation with an AR15 and certain ID on who the bad guys are, you’re in a bad tactical position. Confronting psychotic mass murderers carrying massed hardware with your carry Glock when exiting is an option is an act of insanity. As the sad case in Texas involving the Arroyo incident shows, if the bad guys got a vest and decent aim all you’ll be is a speed bump at best. Even if you do get good hits in-you’re packing a handgun with no stopping power against a determined attacker.There’s scores of accounts of thugs soaking up 10+ rounds of .45,9mm, etc from duty pistols carried by LE. One determined attacker soaked up 5 rounds of .45 to the skull before he bit the dust. It may be the case that you, and your carry gun, can do exactly the same thing everyone else can to stop things-zero.

    Or, at worst, you’ll be shot by the “sleeper” in the crowd you never saw coming.

    Taking down mass murderers is not a task to be done on the spur of the moment. Again, if they’re between you and a safe exit-or they’re about to cross you off the Book of the Living in the next few seconds-do what must be done. But don’t walk up to the jerkoff with the AK if you don’t have to. Hit the exit and call 911. Your family will thank you for it later.

    • avatarDev says:

      And how would one feel if they decided to run, it turned out to be a single murderer and he wound up killing 20 children? We can speculate all we want as to what is the best course of action but a person needs to decide in that instant what to do. Even though he died Joseph Wilcox most certainly slowed down the killers and not only helped people get away but gave the police more time to get there.

      • avatarST says:

        There’s a flip side to that coin.

        What if your family has to bury you because you died before ever touching the grip of your pistol?

        The thing about real life is, sometimes the bad guys win too .

        • avatarDev says:

          Exactly. It’s a catch-22 and for some of us running is the best option, for others trying to fight is the best. And that all depends on the situation at hand. I can’t fault this man one bit for trying to stop what he thought was going to be another mass shooting.

    • avatarKCK says:

      If someone could fill out the details great, but..
      Wilcox must have seen them as a threat because he confronted them. That may mean he saw they were armed and postured to do harm. That confrontation may have been in SELF defense as well as the rest of the store by proximity. If they were going in to kill, why would he not have been an intended victim out right and not just because he confronted them.
      If that is the case, tactically he may have had to draw because there was no other option.
      That is conjecture on my part but so is the guess that he was tactically unwise. So, put “if” in front of your possible scenario or analysis to be clear that we are not sure what actually happened.

    • avatarArdent says:

      You’ve just made a great argument for an anti. No one ever knows how many threats they engage when they engage, it’s just not possible to know. By your logic no one should ever resist anyone for fear they have an unseen accomplice. What you suggest is cowardly and ludicrous. You do the best you can with what you have based on what you know. If it gets you killed, well, that happens sometimes when you’re doing the right thing in a bad situation. You might not have the guts for it, but don’t pretend that some tactical rule lets you off the hook.

      • avatarST says:

        Some counterpoints.

        I never said one shouldn’t engage .I said one should only engage if they don’t have a choice. A very big difference exists between the circumstances.

        Next, gung ho chest pounding aside, the bad guys and gals arent just laying down and waiting to die. Nidal Hassan bought thousands of rounds of 5.7x 28 ammo , which he then fired in practice to his shooting of Fort Hood. The fact that the girl laid back tells me the bad guy and bad gal had a plan in place . We need to shit can this idea that the psychopaths of America are just easy prey for the CCW holder with nerves of steel and a pocket pistol. Tis not so.

        Deadly force is serious business, and the scumbags have literally all the time in the world to practice their assaults. We citizens are limited by time and money and day to day responsibilities. I say again-if the armed citizen has the ability to exit the premises, they should do so and let the police -who are indemnified against wrongful death suits and have the backing of the state government /DA -handle the psychopaths in Aisle 3. The gun on your hip might be for the defense of the civil peace. Mine is to ensure ST and his family escape immediate and unavoidable injury or death.

        Understand that I’m not trying to slander the brave actions of Joe Wilcox. But his actions,brave though they were, resulted in his family losing a loved one and the bad guy/gal adding another notch for their belts. Yes he was courageous, but so were the men who charged the Guns of the Light Brigade.

        • avatarSabrewolfe says:

          Um, the Light Brigade was the charging cavalry unit, not the Russian artillery battalion they assaulted. Second, I’m not sure how much bravery entered into the Light Brigade’s charge. Because of miscommunicated orders, a skirmisher unit was sent out against entrenched and sighted in artillery emplacements, instead of the Russian units trying to retreat with cannon they had captured earlier. By the time the Light Brigade realized the frell-up, they were already committed to the charge. There was pretty much no alternative except to drive through as fast as possible. Also, given the circumstances, the casualties were actually lower than what normally would have been expected. The fact that they were a light, fast unit was what allowed them to not get annihilated. The poem overplays the casualties dramatically. Out of roughly 600 men, 156 were killed and another 122 injured. Still bad, but not the catastrophic losses most people seem to think they suffered.

    • avatarRichard says:

      “One determined attacker soaked up 5 rounds of .45 to the skull before he bit the dust. ”
      Yeah, that simply isn’t true.
      I don’t care what rebuttal you have for it, or source.

    • avatarben jarvis says:

      “ethical concerns”? gun culture, NRA, and ethics are an oxymoron. if they had any ethics about them, they’d be in support of expanded background checks, restrictive assault weapons sales, and other reasonable gun control measures. they’re not only unethical, they’re immoral and un-american.

  32. avatarAlex Twitmyer says:

    It seems to me that these “revolutionaries” started their day with the intention of killing cops. In their twisted minds, they were engaging in a righteous struggle against a tyrannical police state, and once other civilians like Wilcox saw what they had started the revolution would begin. I don’t think it ever crossed their minds that ordinary citizens would think of them as terrorists, not liberators, and would try to stop their killing spree. Being forced to kill mr. Wilcox may indeed have shaken their beliefs enough to end their rampage. Or maybe not, but either way I hope I would have the courage to do what he did.

  33. avatarGuyFromV says:

    “The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes. But there are more good men than evil…and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles.”

  34. avatarDerryM says:

    A salute to Joseph Robert Wilcox, who gave his life trying to save others. Yes, that’s what a Hero does.

    My deepest sympathy to his Family. The shock of his loss must be extremely painful. Was he married? A Father? I am not finding any details about him in the News yet.

  35. avatarturkeestalker says:

    I’m not convinced he stopped the shooters, but maybe slowed them briefly before they ended up going into the store and killing themselves because multiple police officers showed up at Walmart, not because the guy pulled his gun out.

    Maybe he just went through training to obtain his CCW and not active shooting training?

    Too bad he was the only CCW person around who drew their gun. He sure could have used the help and maybe be still be alive.

    I wish I was there. I would have backed him up. I would have shot them dead with my gun.

  36. avatarMecha-Ben says:

    I’m thinking the reason they always kill themselves when they encounter armed resistance is because they want to be in control of their deaths. They killed Wilcox before he could shoot, but instead of continuing, the thought of encountering more, possibly more successful resistance meant they would no longer be in control. Instead of risking that, they killed themselves. that’s what I’m seeing in all these shootings.

    • avatarMecha-Ben says:

      Building on what I said above, I think Wilcox’s actions are directly responsible for ending this. He put up the resistance they weren’t expecting or wanting; he was the sudden unknown variable in their control fantasy. Because they suddenly lost that control, they killed themselves, Wilcox is absolutely a hero.

      • avatardead cowboy gun nut says:

        Nice fantasy analogy, however, that isn’t what happened. The shooters had a suicide pact way before they decided to start shooting and killing people.

  37. avatarDave s says:

    He was a hero. He made fatal mistakes. His sacrifice justifies Good persons having guns, all the time, in any place.

    The rest of us: learn from his mistakes, get intel, get cover, then take action without quarter. You are not an LEO, have no obligation to warn the perps. But you have to know they are the perps and are a danger.

    • avatarJonathan - Houston says:

      Agreed. Anyone who storms into a Walmart and fires off a round into the air has just committed the crime of deadly conduct. In my decision calculus, that person is an imminent threat and immediate use of force, including lethal force, in self defense is justified.

  38. avatarFox Mulder says:

    I think everyone is missing the big picture, that this is another staged hoax shooting

  39. avatargunsngod says:

    “The rifle is a weapon. Let there be no mistake about that. It is a tool of power, and thus dependent completely upon the moral stature of its user. It is equally useful in securing meat for the table, destroying group enemies on the battlefield, and resisting tyranny. In fact, it is the only means of resisting tyranny, since a citizenry armed with rifles simply cannot be tyrannized.”…Jeff Cooper.

    Interesting Cooper’s quote is similar to the anti government propaganda the shooters believed.

    • avatarJohn in AK says:

      Perhaps you missed the part about ‘moral stature.’ A rifle, or any firearm, gives power to its wielder. The moral stature of the wielder makes the difference.

      You also conveniently omitted the rest of the quote:

      “Personal weapons are what raised mankind out of the mud, and the rifle is the queen of personal weapons.”

      “The rifle is a weapon. Let there be no mistake about that. It is a tool of power, and thus dependent completely upon the moral stature of its user. It is equally useful in securing meat for the table, destroying group enemies on the battlefield, and resisting tyranny. In fact, it is the only means of resisting tyranny, since a citizenry armed with rifles simply cannot be tyrannized.”

      “The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles.”

      There is nothing ‘anti-government’ inherent in this quotation; That is, there is nothing ‘anti-government’ unless you believe that tyranny is inherent in our CURRENT government. . .

      • avatardead cowboy gun nut says:

        Denying you are one of them with your anti government views. Nice. Now listen you are the one who conveniently left out parts of a quote. I merely pointed out your failed attempt to cover up how you share the same views about our government as the shooters did.

    • avatarArdent says:

      Get the hell back under that bridge! I swear it must be flooding, I’ve never seen so many of them out at once!

      • avatardead cowboy gun nut says:

        Thank goodness your level of ignorance keeps you away from intelligent people like myself.

        • avatarArdent says:

          I should be so lucky that my intellect kept me away from such as you but it’s to no avail, no matter how smart I am, I still seem to run into you fools at every turn.

  40. avatarformer water walker says:

    My sincere sympathy to Mr. Wilcox’s family. He is a true hero. Anyone interested in setting up a fund for his family?

  41. avatarHannibal says:

    An active shooter situation should be ended immediately with force. It is possible, however, that the facts were not all apparent to the citizen and he did not want to mistakenly shoot someone who was not the culprit but was otherwise armed.

    Sometimes there’s no good option.

  42. avatarJonathan - Houston says:

    I bet all you anti-OC’ers and OCT haters are kicking yourselves now. Or not. Denial runs deep.

    Sure would have been nice to have had a dozen or so men and women with AR’s at low ready inside the Walmart, huh? There’d have been no delay in confronting the first killer, for having to present from concealment. There’d have been no fatal sneaky shot from behind by the second killer, for there being multiple sets of eyes ready to perceive the threat and respond. Had such a group been enjoying pizza at the Cici’s, it’s doubtful the killers would have even selected that location to start their spree.

    These killers always want to get their shots off, then scamper away safely to repeat elsewhere. This is why they choose so-called gun free zones where they know no one is armed. This is why they ambush peace officers with execution style kill shots from behind. This is why they so typically kill themselves once confronted by armed resistance. They want the unopposed destruction that they know numerous concealed and open carrying civilians civilians would deny them.

    It’s time for the people of the gun to unify and rally around the open carriers. Enough is enough.

    • Overall, I agree with what you posted. However, I don’t really agree with the in-your-face way of presenting it to fellow gun owners. My stomach turns when they do it to OCers and it does so now when you do it.

      • avatarJonathan -- Houston says:

        Well, fellow gun owners can suck it. How about that? This is The Truth About Guns, not Awww…..Let’s Hold The Pwitty Wittle Gunowners’ Hands And Speak In Hushed Tones And Euphemisms So As Not To Offend Anyone Or Ever Point Out That They’re Wrong.

        Grow up, sir.

        • It appears that you took what I wrote the wrong way. I wasn’t chastising you and was actually agreeing. I just needed to distance myself from the delivery a little. I didn’t down you for your deliver though. Think about it for a little while. In other words, I wouldn’t have said it the way you did but I agree with what you said. That was all, nothing more and nothing less.

    • avatarArdent says:

      Would it have made a difference if it was OC or CCW carriers Jonathan? For that matter, what are the odds of an OC rally going on in the same place as a shoot out? Really, it’s just inane to use this as a stump to speak to OC.

      • Ardent, I took the main point of his post to be OCing rifles (ARs, etc). That, IMHO, could’ve made a huge difference and concealing them would be difficult.

        However, just taking it as OC or CC of handguns… yeah, except for a little deterrent value before shots being fired, I don’t perceive much of a difference once the execution started. The important thing would’ve been armed people present and willing to act regardless of if they were carrying in the open or concealed.

        • avatarArdent says:

          I can see that John, still, it’s impractical and unnecessary to carry a rifle everywhere. I saw his post as relating only to having encountered an OC rally rather than honestly happening into a place where there were citizens with rifles. Given that though, I’d go one further. Just as I said killing from ambush is easy, I’m not sure even 5 or 6 people with rifles, seated while having their lunch, have much chance against a duo with pistols who came in with a will to kill. The same drill the murderers seemed to have used on the concealed carrier could be run against the murderer if you’re carrying concealed; appear not to be a threat, then engage from surprise. If this is the new reality, we’ll have to rethink everything there is about society and how we interact with it. Luckily for everyone this is a rare anomaly and irrelevant to our daily lives.

        • I think that what I’m going at is some of those who cry out, “concealed means concealed!” and belittle those who chose to OC or OC a long gun demand that people not carry a rifle or open carry a handgun. Whereas, the majority of those who advocate OC of a handgun or rifle aren’t suggesting that every do so. For instance, I am glad that there is a mixture of OC and CC. They both have utility and I usually do both at the same time.

          I don’t think OCing of rifles could’ve stopped the initial executions once the deterrent threshold was overcome. However, I doubt the pair would’ve made it out of the pizza place alive. In the case of Walmart after the restaurant executions, everyday rifle OC would have brought longer range weapons to bear. These two could have more easily been shot from a distance with a rifle. *If* (and I doubt that they will), these types of incidents become much more common then I’m going to consider OCing a rifle most places. Sure, it’s a PITA and I’m lazy but I’d rather remain alive.

          As to ambush… Yep, not much help there. Someone is going to probably be seriously injured or murdered right off the bat. It’s those crucial moments after springing the ambush that are going to make the difference.

        • avatarJonathan -- Houston says:

          Ardent? Whether a rally or just a dozen random people who happen to be open carrying, rifles or side arms, it doesn’t matter. The idea that a would-be spree killer is going to encounter massive and immediate armed resistance is enough to deter them from initiating the spree shooting in that location. It’s the deterrence that has the impact. It isn’t armed citizens reacting with Flash-type speed to intervene between a spree killer and his first victim at point blank range. OF COURSE anyone can get that first surprise shot off. Duh.

          The issue is the totality of the spree killing, however. Knowing that they cannot get the 2nd through nth shots off, without incurring armed and likely lethal resistance, is what deters the first shot and the spree killing from even taking place. These people want a high body count and if they can’t get it, then they want to take their ball and go home, or at least go to a more accommodating locale. Refusing to acknowledge that possibility is simply being willfully daft.

          What’s funny, is that the same people who argue open carry is ineffective, because it doesn’t prevent the surprise first shot itself if someone decided to take it, are ones who vehemently argue in favor of concealed carry because it’s oh so effective. There’s no logical reconciliation there, of course, but that doesn’t matter. Antis will say “we don’t want it turning into a Wild Wild West shootout in a theater!”, to which carriers will promptly reply that it’s deterrence that matters and the massive shootout scenario needed even occur.

          Funny how the same people who will MAKE the deterrence argument themselves in one context, cannot even FATHOM the very same principle in another context, particularly when that other context (open carry of rifles or whatever) happens to be something with which they do not agree. Sheesh. Gun owners can be just as obtuse as the gun grabbers themselves. And then to declare as “inane” every point with which you disagree or which you cannot understand, is itself inane.

        • @Jonathan — Houston: I’m a staunch OC advocate and I believe that Ardent is too. You’re fighting with the choir. Clarification and friendly disagreement is one thing (which is what Ardent and I are engaged in) but what you’re doing is something different. IIRC, you’ve done this before on other posts. Hmm…

      • avatarJonathan -- Houston says:

        My post contemplated the potential impact of open carry in this situation. The reality of concealed carry is, well, already a component of the event. Why would I address the potentiality of concealed carry, when its actuality is already part of the story? Sooo…..your question, as per usual, is asinine and intended only to throw up some kind of counter to whatever I’ve posted. Give it a rest.

        You know, for a lot who go about whining how plain and simple the Second Amendment is and how damnably dim the gun grabbers are for willfully misunderstanding it, you do see to suffer from some reading comprehension challenges of your own. Work on that, will you?

        • Really? You’re now attacking Ardent? The same Ardent who I know to be a champion of Liberty? Man, you are way off base.

        • avatarJonathan - Houston says:

          I’m not “attacking” anyone. You guys like to dish it out, but can’t take it. That’s not the norm on TTAG, but it’s SOP for certain individuals. This is just the animated give and take expected in a forum covering a controversial topic. Your little passive aggressive self-definition of what constitutes moderation is eyeroll worthy, because it starts the sachrine sweet make-nice mandate clock ticking *just* after you or Ardent, or someone similar, makes a disrespectful remark. Convenient timing, that, which I’ve noticed in other posts of yours and his. Hmm.

          You get your little digs in and then cry “King’s X!”, and no fair poking back? Please. It won’t do. Engage in polite disagreement, fine. I tend to learn more from those whom I disagree with than those whose views views I share, anyway. However, when someone starts off with something like “You’re inane” or “You turn my stomach”, then damn well expect to catch some flak, pal, especially when you’ve neglected even to address my argument.

        • You’re just trolling now. Apparently, this is nothing new. Please give it a rest already.

  43. avatardead cowboy gun nut says:

    Wilcox isn’t any damn hero. He died trying to live out his cowboy hero fantasy. The guy obviously is just like every gun toting cretin, thinking they have some sort of control or power over someone with their guns. And lookie there folks, he confronted two people with guns and guess what? He died. Most of the time gun nuts pull out their guns when they think have the drop on someone, whether they be unarmed or not expecting someone to pull a gun on them. It’s only speculation how many lives he saved. That means no one has any idea if his actions saved anyone. It’s simply pure fantasy. And that my friends isn’t reality.

    • avatarJohn in AK says:

      You’d be hard-pressed, right about now, to find any ‘friends’ ’round these parts, ‘cowboy.’

    • avatarS_J says:

      *sigh* So which pro-control blog do you hail from and who’s paid you for your frothing gibberish? At the very least if you’re going to spew someone else’s mean-spirited slander like a scumbag you should have the sense to buy in.

      Nice username BTW. Not at all disrespectful to the deceased.

    • avatarCLarson says:

      When you try to stop a bad guy sometimes the bad guy wins anyway. In life there are no guarantees. How Wilcox died tells me his life had meaning. When you go will people care enough to want help your family and honor your memory? It is not too late to change your stripes, nut.

      • avatardead cowboy gun nut says:

        Oh yeah you just continue sitting there and shrug your shoulders, after all there’s nothing we can do. Only a nut would believe that nonsense.

    • avatarcknarf says:

      Instead of cowering on the floor, this guy attempted to stop them. Although he failed, you can’t deny courage of his actions. If it were a police officer in his shoes, would you think differently about the situation?

    • avatarRalph says:

      Hey look, guys! It’s one of those tr0ll things seeking ten seconds of relevance. I thought they were urban legends, but no. Here’s a real one.

      Somebody tell Snopes!

      • avatardead cowboy gun nut says:

        If this is how you attempt to gain attention I feel sorry for you and the life you live.

    • avatarArdent says:

      Oh man, not again! Get back under that bridge, go on get! Man they are out in force tonight! It must be high water brings em’ out. God knows I shoo ‘em back under the bridge as fast as I can.

      • avatardead cowboy gun nut says:

        Maybe whatever what you think is under the bridge will bite you and give you rabies.

    • avatarDev says:

      You’ve definitely got an odd view. In your view, judging by your post, it wouldn’t be wise for anyone, including police, to draw their weapon when faced with a threat because they might die. Guess what? Sometimes the good guys DO die! That does not mean in any way that they should not try. If they didn’t try to stop a threat then who is going to? Yes, sometimes the good guys survive unscathed, and had this happened yesterday the discussion would be very different. The sad fact is that a brave man lost his life trying to make a difference, trying to save other people’s lives. I believe he succeeded, because he definitely caused a delay in the murderers’ plans. Ask any soldier, any police officer, any fireman, heck ask anyone with a sense of self-respect and some knowledge of the world and they will tell you that, as I said earlier, sometimes to good ones die. That does not mean they failed, however, only that they tried.

      • avatardead cowboy gun nut says:

        Not as odd as your world view, thinking what you see in movies, tv shows or old cowboy wild west romance novels are reality. The only good guys is the one who can see the world without rose color glasses and making up any excuse to justify why someone needs to be murdered senselessly

    • avatarJonathan - Houston says:

      Well, these two killers had just assassinated two peace officers. They did go on to murder Wilcox. One even entered the Walmart firing his gun. Then they engaged in a shootout with police. These are all facts. True, it’s impossible to know with certainty what course events might have taken if Wilcox had not intervened, but to declare as pure fantasy the extrapolation that more violence was in the offing simply defies logic.

      Anything that served to impede these killers’ murderous momentum, such as the actions of Wilcox, can reasonably be interpreted as being beneficial and as having spared additional lives. Even the police have publicly hailed him a hero, for crying out loud.

      So at this point, the only one engaging in any fantastic imagination of events is, well, you. I won’t speculate as to why you’re doing that, however. I think deep down you already know, and the rest of us can figure it out.

  44. avatarformer water walker says:

    Thank you dev. No thank dead cowboy.

  45. avatarGuyFromV says:

    Get a rope.

    • avatardead cowboy gun nut says:

      Yes put the rope around your neck and I will gladly pull the chair out for you.

  46. avatarMarine 03 says:

    Joseph Robert Wilcox is a hero.

  47. avatarthink about it says:

    It appears the CCW guy engaged the male shooter and was shot by the female shooter at the Walmart, . I guess the CCW permit holder made the fatal mistake not expecting the possibility there could have been more than one shooter. The odds changed tremendously. That is exactly why the police during an active shooting never think there is only one shooter. And no it’s not only the mentally ill committing these shootings. It’s also your NRA myth average sane “law abiding citizen” types with guns committing mass shootings over ideology, beliefs etc. I wonder where all the Bundy supporters are now? Using the mental illness card is just another form of denial by pro gun people or could it be there are a lot of mentally ill people with guns that are law abiding citizens who know they shouldn’t have guns. It would explain why someone murders their own family, friends, lover and then themselves with their guns.

    So my question is when does a so called sane “law abiding citizen” with a gun become a murderous “criminal or “mentally ill” person with a gun intent on killing other human beings? What “triggers” make killing other human beings with their guns acceptable or the “solution” to their perceived problems? Should we call it “hidden mental illness”?

    No more of the usual failed excuses hiding behind the 2nd Amendment, the government is bad, comparison arguments-cars, alcohol, criminals, bad guys, mentally ill, video games, etc. This is about sane so called “law abiding citizens” committing murder with their guns.

    Until society starts taking steps to address the culture of violence with guns and as a form of status,you know who you are posing with your gun or recording video of yourself shooting empty beer cans/bottles in your backyard and posting it online. We shall continue to see the daily headlines of senseless murders from someone with a gun. It’s time to find better “solutions” to a problem than just accepting guns as the only “solution.”

    • avatarFull Cleveland says:

      Culture of violence? What is that? Is it illegal? What else does it include beside people who shoot cans and pose with a gun? Does it include people who hijack airplanes and fly them into buildings?
      I bet it includes only the people you want to target. That’s why the Constitution is so important. Think about it.

    • avatarJohn in AK says:

      Excuse me. . . is there a coherent thought or salient point anywhere IN there? Is your “quotation mark” key stuck down? Why are you phrasing every thought as a “question,” when you don’t really want “answers”? Is all of this supposed to be “rhetorical?”

      Let me see if I can summarize. . . You believe that all people who carry, or even own, guns are homicidally insane, or could become so at the drop of a hat. You believe that finding guns to be ‘fun’ is a mental disorder. You believe that, given that gun ownership is a vice, all recreational use of same should be hidden away from public view. You believe that law-abiding people are law-abiding until the instant that the inevitable mental illness strikes or they just have a bad day, and they decide to use their guns criminally.

      Am I “close?”

      I, Sir, have heard your mating call on many a summer’s evening, near the lake. I must say that it is hauntingly beautiful.

      • avatarSabrewolfe says:

        That has got to be the grossest injustice ever perpetrated on the magnificent bird we call the loon I have seen or heard tell of. Shame on you for insinuating one of those beautiful avians would not drown itself in said lake before consummating ANY kind of relationship with that foul troll. Poor John Audubon must be rolling in his grave right now.

        For shame!

    • avatarRalph says:

      So my question is when does a so called sane “law abiding citizen” with a gun become a murderous “criminal or “mentally ill” person

      When they look in the mirror and see your face, Sunshine.

    • avatarArdent says:

      Damn, it’s not a flood of them, it’s that same one wearing a disguise! Get pitchforks and torches, we’ll get it back under that bridge yet!

    • avatarJonathan - Houston says:

      Well, who’s sane or not can be a tricky judgment call, especially when it’s close to the line, since no bright line exists.

      That said , the premise of your entire post is false, regardless these people’s sanity, because they definitely were not law abiding. The guy’s a thief and a felon and the woman provided firearms to a felon. That’s not law abiding, as you premised your post, so the rest is moot.

      • avatardead cowboy gun nut says:

        Of course there are no such people in the law abiding citizen group, just the nice friendly positive NRA label they want the world to believe.

  48. avatarPhil says:

    How did we go from a woman being killed in walmart to now a man

    • avatarRalph says:

      On the spot transexual surgery is now available at Walmart.

    • avatarDev says:

      It’s the news cycle these days. Everyo0ne is trying to get the story out there as quickly as possible because we all want to know the story. So sometimes the facts are wrong, or they quote a witness who was slightly wrong, etc. As time goes on and the police do more investigating we (hopefully) get the real story.

  49. avatardead cowboy gun nut says:

    Oh please don’t give me that bleeding heart crap about being a hero. It’s bs. The chump made a stupid mistake trying to be a hero to get his name in the news and now hes dead.

    It’s only frothing gibberish when a different opinion doesn’t subscribe to your narrative about your fellow gun toting nut jobs. Respect for the deceased, ha, the idiot died because he thought his gun would protect him. He made the choice he decided his life wasn’t worth living. Friends and cowboys, now you are simply looking like a bunch of deluded fools.

    • avatarJohn in AK says:

      “It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.”

    • avatarFull Cleveland says:

      DCGN, I’ll take a Wilcox for neighbor over you any day.

      • avatardead cowboy gun nut says:

        So you are predicting your own death on the internet so you can honor your wish of becoming neighbors with some poor sap who didn’t make a good decision with his gun and ended up dead from another gun toting nutter?

      • avatarJonathan - Houston says:

        I’d even take George Zimmerman for a neighbor before DCGN.

        • avatardead cowboy gun nut says:

          Of course you would because you are a racist murder and woman beater like good ole george.

    • avatarS_J says:

      And so if a man’s death fits your ilk’s narrative we should all stop to rejoice over the blood spilled and renounce the principles that you choose to spit on?

      Wilcox may not have been a hero, but he died with his boots on. You are just filth.

    • avatarGubba Bump says:

      So, you think you can come to this forum, say a lot of belittling things about this man, Wilcox, throw around a bunch of name-calling and stereotyped epithets, be rude, abusive and mean-spirited and get your point across or change anybody’s mind? You, whoever the hell you think you are, are the deluded fool, sonny. However much time you spent writing these two comments, was time out of your life completely wasted. You made me laugh derisively at you. Now go crawl back under the slimy rock you were hiding under before and put a lid on it. You are not worthy of talking about Wilcox.

      • avatardead cowboy gun nut says:

        Please you idiots spewing your comments in my direction are simply cowards. It’s not about the poor sap who got shot to death for trying to be a hero. That’s just false cover. It’s more about defending your precious guns. You fools could care less about the guy. It’s always about your guns. You selfish self centered pigs.

        • avatarGubba Bump says:

          Well, in order to take an offense at what you say, I would have to have some respect for you, which I do not. I’ve been called worse things than you seem to be able to come-up with by better people than you can ever hope to be in your wildest dreams. So, that’s about all my time I care to waste on you…tried to help you out, but you are just too dense to see it. Have a real good day. Adios Amigo!

        • avatarArdent says:

          Yeah, you know, it totally is, all about the guns. But since it’s a right and there isn’t a damn thing you can do about it, how about you slither off, eh? I know it must be frustrating, losing every debate, losing every time the legislature meets, losing every court case. I mean really, it must be hellish to be told you’re wrong and then having it proven to you over and over again. I can see why you’d be petty and mean. Knowing that there are more people actually carrying guns than those who agree with your anti liberty agenda. Knowing that we all think you a coward for your inability or unwillingness to stand up for yourself and provide for your own defense. Knowing deep down that you really are a coward for the same reason and hating us for holding up an example by which you pale. I get it, it’s ok, but really, just crawl away and leave the adults to their conversation now.

      • avatardead cowboy gun nut says:

        Oh yes of course, I can post my opinion want just like you can. If you can’t accept it, then don’t respond. After all, think about all the time you wasted from your life crying about me expressing my right to have an opinion. BTW there is a reason there is a 1st Amendment before the 2nd Amendment, perhaps you should focus on defending all the other rights instead of just one.

        • avatarDev says:

          The First Amendment ONLY applies to the government’s ability to restrict free speech and assembly. It’s been ruled that that Amendment does not cover hate speech, nor does a private forum such as this one have to allow anyone to say what they want. If you’re going to start trying to used the Bill of Rights as you’re justification, perhaps you had better do some more study.

        • avatarJonathan - Houston says:

          The 2nd amendment serves as a powerful and persuasive reminder of the 1st. It’s the 2nd amendment, young one, which gives vitality and value to the 1st, whose outer ambit would be far less far, I assure you, were it not for the atmosphere of liberty ensured by the 2nd.

    • avatarDev says:

      If you got hit by a car because you pushed a child out of the way, would we be wrong to call you a hero if you died? That’s the analogy you are using. Although, judging by your vitriol, I’m not sure you would go out of your way, so let’s assume any person died while trying to save someone else from an automobile, or rescue someone who was drowning, or being attacked by animals, whatever. Even if they die, that person is still a hero because they tried to save someone else.

      • avatardead cowboy gun nut says:

        You seriously need to educate yourself about the Bill of Rights instead of your warped interpretation. You are basically saying if you don’t agree with another persons opinion, they don’t have the same rights as you believe you should have.

        Actually, its your analogy you are attempting to use. Now if I stated I was using that analogy, then you could make the false claim about me.

        Maybe you need to ask yourself if you would be that action hero you are using in your false dilemma argument.

        Oh yes, get off the topic about guns, and use the comparison argument about cars or drowning. It’s not the same type of situation. No one is toting a gun going around shooting people. Nice slippy slope attempt there. You gun nutters are predictable. You must have pre made flash cards you pull out to use as talking points.

        • avatarDev says:

          Uh, your comment made no sense. What was the point?

        • avatarJonathan - Houston says:

          Thank you, Dev, for that reality check! I thought it was the lateness of the hour on my part, because his comment made less than zero sense to me, too.

    • avatarCitizen Salty says:

      I will respond with an appeal to you as a human being. What if the victim was your family member? Your wife, your brother, your child? Someone who you didn’t agree with their political beliefs and their desire to fulfill their rights, but loved all the same? Would you mourn, or would you cut them off because their manner of death didn’t fit with what you believe? What about the police who died? Are they dead gun nuts because they might have enjoyed shooting as a recreational activity as well as part of their chosen profession of protecting and serving?

      At the end of the day, you can be as anti-gun as you like. I’ll never take umbrage with that or try to sway you to own a firearm; that’s an intensely personal choice that I would never force upon anyone, no matter how much I love to shoot and how much I respect and honor my rights. But on the same page, you have a right to say whatever you want to say, no matter how reprehensible it might be. It just saddens me that for someone who wants an end to the “epidemic of gun crime” that so many on your side idolizes, you’d be so quick to dismiss a victim who at the very least, had a choice in their destiny to die sobbing or die fighting. It’s not often victims of such crime get that opportunity, and who knows how much time he may have bought for children to escape, or an elderly couple who had lived through so much and weren’t ready to end their lives that day.

      Say what you want about guns. It’s your right. Just as it’s mine to own them and carry them whenever I please within the limits of the law. But I’m begging you, don’t demonize a victim because he didn’t fit in with your political agenda.

      • avatardead cowboy gun nut says:

        You seem to lack comprehension reading skills, the guy clearly had a choice. However, he choose to die. And that’s the real story. The shooters didn’t confront him, he confronted the male shooter.

        So your answer is to keep the status quo and continue to let body count pile up instead of doing something about the out of control gun murders in this country. After all, that’s the price for your precious gun rights. Never mind those murdered won’t get to enjoy their rights.

  50. avatarRW says:

    Wilcox was brave just didn’t know the situation well enough. He didn’t know if this guy was hell bent on shooting everyone in the store (so he hesitated to fire immediately), he didn’t know if there were more (hence positioned himself rather poorly), and he didn’t have back up (who could have noticed the sneaky woman with a gun). Should have high tailed it the other direction or taken a defensive position until he knew more.

  51. avatarExcedrine says:

    Val Halla awaits you, Mr. Wilcox.

  52. avatardead cowboy gun nut says:

    Denial is the best way to avoid the truth about delusional people with guns going around thinking they’re someone special and has status. I’m not impressed with your guns. Clinging to some hunk of metal to gain an identity….LOL

    • avatarRalph says:

      Clinging to some keyboard to gain an identity….LOL

      • avatardead cowboy gun nut says:

        Better than clinging to some hunk of metal thinking it will save your life. Please see example of that failed logic from Mr. Wilcox.

    • avatarS_J says:

      “So which pro-control blog do you hail from and who’s paid you for your frothing gibberish?”

      The question still stands, troll.

      • avatardead cowboy gun nut says:

        Awww, the classic loser insult when you don’t agree with someone else opinion and you think of yourself as an American..LOL

        • avatarArdent says:

          No, really, you’re a troll, and not even a very good one, we’ve had better.

      • avatardead cowboy gun nut says:

        Somehow I don’t think you believe your own ignorant thoughts. I sincerely hope you get that worked out.

  53. avatarPragmatist says:

    His sister said it best: “I’m proud of him and I also wished he hadn’t done it cause he’d still be here.”

  54. avatarAlfonso A. Rodriguez says:

    It seems that he had no type of tactical training for the real world and that carrying concealed gives you no chance at all if you are not willing to shoot in a confrontation and for that you need the correct state of mind. He should have just observed and call the PD and if the couple had started to show their intentions in an obvious way, then engage them with your fire arm from a protected position if possible, but engage them aggressively. As it is, stay out of the fight if your situation awareness is poor and you have no real training. Conceal carry can give most inexperience people a false sense of security and some experienced people a sense of invulnerability. Those two cops were lunching in public and in uniform and that makes them a target. Did they think that their tour of duty and crime stops because they are having lunch? Like I said, situation awareness at all times is the most important aspect of staying alive, it gives a better chance of survival. Sorry for the LEO’s and for the civilian, but such is life, specially if you are not paying attention.

    • avatardead cowboy gun nut says:

      Excellent points Alfonso. I totally agree with your post. Too bad most of the comments posted on here are from people with no intelligence. They only post emotional based drivel.

      I recognize your clear minded opinion .

    • avatarJohn in AK says:

      I know that you mean well, and on face, your advice on situational awareness is valid; However, there are just simply times when evil triumphs. There is nothing in the story so far to indicate a lack of awareness on the part of the officers; One was shot in the back of the head while refilling a soft drink. What would you propose? Having one officer stand guard, pistol drawn, watching his partner’s back as he gets his fizzy libation? Have all of the other patrons raise their hands above their heads and then frisk them for weapons before sitting down to eat, backs to the wall, allowing no new customers to enter without being searched? Have one officer take cover behind a substantial structure, patrol rifle at the ready, while his partner gobbles his meal furtively, with one hand on his pistol? Or, better yet, never leave their armoured patrol car to eat?

      It is unfortunately true that a prepared and dedicated killer who intends to die gloriously anyway, no matter what happens, and who shoots first, from ambush or with surprise, will most likely kill a few good people every time until good people kill him. Or her. It is just impossible to prepare for every eventuality, or to live in Condition Orange at all times.

      • avatardead cowboy gun nut says:

        I’ve noticed with your comments you seem quite delusional trying to think for other people when you have faulty logic and reasoning skills.

    • avatarHannibal says:

      In your world does everyone operate on ‘condition red’ all the time? It’s impossible. The police wouldn’t be able to do their jobs, much less eat lunch, and everyone would drop dead at 35 from stress-induced heart attacks.

      You do the best you can, but sometimes shit happens. You wear your seatbelt and your vest, but sometimes it’s not enough. Sometimes nothing’s enough… except in hindsight.

  55. avatarformer water walker says:

    Some vile trolls lurking about.

    • avatardead cowboy gun nut says:

      Are you having a bad day?

      • avatarArdent says:

        Nah, a day without a troll to kick around is like a day without sunshine. Thanks for joining the party. You didn’t really think you were the first liberal pantywaist statist jackass to join us did you? We’ve been having fun at the expense of weak-minded folks such as you for years!

        • avatardead cowboy gun nut says:

          Ahhh yes you just couldn’t help yourself and had pull the political card, assuming someone has a different opinion so therefore they’re liberal. Thanks for verifying indeed you are one of a weaker mind. You fools are predictable, grasping at anything below reasonable intelligence to define your existence. I find you merely fonder for my amusement.

        • I find you merely fonder fodder for my amusement.

          Unless you have great affection for him or are going to fondle him, I guess… ;)

  56. avatarSergio says:

    I just got here. Just wanted to say that tacticool operator in the photo looks like he may have been playing a little too much Rainbow Six: Vegas.

  57. avatarBuckeyecopperhead says:

    Can the mods here please remove the trolls? Their vile presence on this page is a disgrace to the memory of Mr. Wilcox, just as they are not worthy to breathe the same air he once breathed.

    • avatarBradN says:

      I think we should keep the trolls around. Only those who are insecure in their point of view attempt to silence people with opposing opinions. People like these trolls are frustrated that they are on the losing side. I personally find joy in their frustration. Savor it because whenever people lash out, it’s usually out of desperation. Let them continue to provide entertainment for us who are capable of logical, rational and cogent thought when it comes to firearms and their use.

      Keep it coming trolls. I welcome your desperate and inconsequential drivel. It pleases me to see that the opposition us pro-gun people face are such childish and incapable people.

      • avatarJohn in AK says:

        Remember the line from “Silverado”?: “I think there’s only a coupla guys up there, and this a**hole is one of ‘em!” In this case, there seems to be only one a**hole up there. And he’s a very bad shot.

        • avatardead cowboy gun nut says:

          Yep just like the fantasy world of movies. This is exactly how you think.

      • avatardead cowboy gun nut says:

        Keep dreaming your fantasy world there. The only losing is your gun nutter types. Each shooting proves beyond a doubt where the debate about guns are heading. Instead of sitting there and drooling all over yourself how about you come up with a solution that doesn’t require more guns in society. Til then you really are just another foolish believing in fantasies that don’t exist.

        • avatarHannibal says:

          “Each shooting proves beyond a doubt where the debate about guns are heading.”

          Your observation is as faulty as your grammar. There is no ‘debate’ about guns that is going anywhere, just sore losers who want to keep pretending like they have something new to say. You didn’t get any of your useless measures passed this last year, you certainly won’t now.

    • avatardead cowboy gun nut says:

      Stop crying and go have your mommy dry your tears.

      • avatarBradN says:

        More. I thrive on the sheer irrelevancy of your existence. The desperation, the adolescent comments, the sub-toddler level intellect, the mediocre and completely unnoteworthy presence you project. It makes me insatiable and I require more. Dance monkey puppet, dance for my amusement.

        • avatardead cowboy gun nut says:

          Good of you to admit you are like a lonely child with a non existent life begging for attention online. Did your mommy bring you milk and cookies yet?

  58. avatarcharlie457 says:

    It is indisputable that if someone has the drop on you, it’s all over. No amount of guns & ammo or black belt jiujitsu is going to change that scenario. I’m sorry that Mr. Wilcox died, but I have to wonder just what kind of misguided Wyatt-Earp-syndrome he had just because he had a CCW and a weapon.

    • avatarDev says:

      Would you jump in the water to save someone who was drowning? Or run in front of a speeding car to try and push a child to safety? Think about that before you make some half-assed “Wyatt Earp” analogy.

      • avatardead cowboy gun nut says:

        Think before spewing some half ass analogy that has no merit and don’t ask something of someone you probably wouldn’t do yourself. False dilemma shows you are trying your best to avoid talking about how guns are a factor in the incident. No car was used to kill the 2 cops or fellow gun nut trying to be a hero. Nor did anybody drown. You easily get off track about the subject being discussed.

        • avatarDev says:

          Your so-called analysis of the situation was that the guy wasn’t a hero because he had a gun.

    • avatarcharlie457 says:

      No, he isn’t a hero. His mother said he took his gun with him only 90% of the time and she wishes he hadn’t this time because he would still be alive, and NOTHING ELSE WOULD HAVE CHANGED. There are gun nuts all over America who are fearful and paranoid and feel powerless and think that having a gun is going to MAKE THEM A HERO if anybody should get out of line. Gun nuts go LOOKING FOR TROUBLE and get themselves and their loved ones shot. I took many CCW and gun safety classes and if it were up to me, I would have held back about a third of the attendees because they scared me with their attitudes. Of course, nobody ever gets flagged at a CCW class – EVERYBODY gets a certificate.

  59. avatarJus Bill says:

    “Reports indicate that the two murderers had plans to move to secondary sites and continue their killing spree, but as we’ve seen time and again with active shooter situations the individuals involved immediately give up as soon as they are confronted by an armed opposition.”

    Why?

    This conclusion is beginning to look anything but random to me.

  60. avatarbenny says:

    RE must be slacking with his “no ad hominem attacks” rule…

    This is the first anti I’ve seen on here since mikeybnumbers! At least he had a code of ethics. Calling people you’ve never even met weak minded and such…looks an awful lot like projection…

    • avatarThomasR says:

      It’s true benny; this Dead Cowboy Gun Nut is projecting his own feelings of powerlessness, helplessness and dependency on those that are not. You can tell from his hatred filled spew that he in fact hates himself for his failure to fulfill even the most basic responsibilities as an adult. Instead he has stayed an arrested adult, stuck in child hood.

      He really is just striking out at those that show him for what he is. and it frightens him; which he covers up with his hatred and intolerance.

      • avatarJohn in AK says:

        Our little friend, in all of his myriad personas (he’s on another thread, now, as well, with a new name besides the ones he’s used in this one), will most likely turn out to be the quintessential ‘pubescent boy with a keyboard’, reminiscent of fart gas in an elevator: Rude, briefly disgusting, but soon gone. The mistake we have made with him is to believe, early on, that he might be sincere. Now that he has proven himself vapid and shallow, he can be ignored.

        • avatardead cowboy gun nut says:

          Ironic you are acting exactly like the way you portray me as being. I know you have become obsessive and can’t let go, that’s why you keep making smug remarks about me. Which is good, because you proved I got inside your pea brain mind. What’s left of it.

      • avatardead cowboy gun nut says:

        Now that’s funny you just described yourself and your fellow gun nutters. You bed wetters. I don’t live my life in fear and need a gun in case the boogey man is under my bed. Hell you fools need a gun everywhere you go. You sleep with loaded guns. That is the definition of fear and paranoia. You know you have thoughts of wanting to shut me up and using your precious guns to kill me. Insecure wussies.

        • avatarDev says:

          So it would seem you have no rational argument against firearm ownership, so you resort to childish name calling and insults. Typical reaction from the ignorant that are losing the debate. Perhaps if you made one cohesive argument backed up by facts people would see a point in your drivel, but I have yet to see anything other than lame attacks.

    • avatardead cowboy gun nut says:

      Oh boo hoo you are such an emotional queen.

    • avatarHannibal says:

      And the rather obvious sockpuppetry.

  61. avatarGrumpy in Kali says:

    This was AFTER the shooters told everyone to leave…..

  62. avatardead cowboy gun nut says:

    It’s great to see one cuckoo nut with a gun back up another cuckoo nut with a gun.

    • avatarDev says:

      Do you even have a rational argument or are you just here to try to make yourself feel adequate? I have not seen one post of yours that successfully defends your position and that it is wrong for people to carry a firearm.

  63. avatarobama says:

    Heros to furthur what cause, more like losers of a cause i believe a revolution needs to happen but not like this. Im not talking about wilcox he shouldnt have got involved now his family is with out him, its his fault he died, no disrespect but the thruth is the truth.

    • avatardead cowboy gun nut says:

      Keep the dream alive about a revolution. It will be squashed. Time after time, it’s been proven the people want peace and not some nuts with guns trying to force something onto the people. The tide is slowly starting to turn against the so called revolution mongers. If, indeed there was any real chance of a revolution you wouldn’t be hearing about a couple of misguided fools going around shooting a couple of cops and some poor sap with a gun trying to be a hero. Who cares about your damn guns? There are more concerns facing this country than your damn guns.

  64. avatardead cowboy gun nut says:

    The rational argument is gun ownership is really about those who doesn’t want to be held responsible or have any accountability. The more shootings that occur, the more your rational loses credibility. Someday, gun ownership will be proven to be a mental illness, once society decides they’ve had enough of the gun violence and want to make changes for a peaceful society.

    • avatarDev says:

      The vast majority of gun owners are much more responsible than the person who depends on the government for everything. The mental illness is the refusal to debate by using factual data and research to back up one’s claims, instead resorting to name-calling, personal attacks and making baseless statements. Gun violence is lessening every year, all the while gun ownership is increasing. You don’t even have to go too far to find out those facts, and they can even be found on government websites.

      • avatardead cowboy gun nut says:

        Once again stating your own opinion or making false claims about how great guns are doesn’t make it true. Still waiting for your proof to back up your position. Mental illness is at a high rate among gun owners. The high percentage of suicide among gun owners proves it. You claim gun owners are responsible yet we have daily reports of gun owners being irresponsible. Laying loaded guns around so kids have access to them and end up shooting a family member or friend. It’s a really nice world view you have there. You claim gun owners don’t need government help for everything,but the military is one of the biggest welfare programs this country has.

      • avatardead cowboy gun nut says:

        “The vast majority of gun owners are much more responsible than the person who depends on the government for everything. The mental illness is the refusal to debate by using factual data and research to back up one’s claims”

        Your faulty opinion, nothing fact based.

        I guess you admit you have some form of mental illness.

    • avatarS_J says:

      “The rational argument is gun ownership is really about those who doesn’t want to be held responsible or have any accountability”

      … says the sh!theel whose plan whenever faced with an armed assailant is to hide in a corner with emptied bowels dialing 911 and waiting to die while the statistically more dangerous quasi-military lackeys you approve of show up ten minutes late.

      • avatardead cowboy gun nut says:

        Oh no the fear mongers are out in force, creating scenarios where there is a bad guy and they need their guns. Yet, its very rare they will encounter such a situation. Where do you get these ideas from? It sure isn’t reality. Oh yeah, you were brainwashed into believing it.

        • avatarS_J says:

          I don’t have to create scenarios, ask the thousands of women raped/assaulted or households burglarized every year. Go ahead, tell them what they experienced isn’t “reality” and that they would’ve been better off unarmed. Your ideology is anti-human, anti-responsibility, divisive and sickens me to the f–king core.

  65. avatarMarine 03 says:

    I wonder if the trolls popping up on this forum realize that their behavior is EXACTLY why you’ve lost the entire 2nd Amendment arguement? This man, Joesph Wilcox, is clearly a hero of the highest order. You have recently seen the complete ruination of your gun-banning plans and now resort to slandering the dead…..classy. Thinking men and women understand the scum you are and you cement our position within the minds of those who are on the fence. We will never give up our guns. You won’t ever take our guns. If you ever try it would be the happiest day of our lives. No new laws will ever be passed regarding gun control now……well done! We are strong and you are weak. We have the guns after all…haha. What was your plan anyway? Send men with guns around to collect everyone’s guns and then say, “why did you think you needed guns anyway?” As I said, we won, you lost. Guns are here to stay. There is a solution to this scurge of violence, but I assure you it isn’t trying to take guns away. You’ve never known violence until that is attempted…..but by all means try. I would weep with joy and you would sue for peace in a day or two. No new laws will be passed. No new laws will be honored. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Deal with it or make your move (zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz).

    • avatardead cowboy gun nut says:

      Actually, your fellow mentally ill gun nutters are exactly why there will be changes to the 2nd Amendment, it’s time to change it for modern times. Otherwise, if you want to follow to your false interpretation of it, then you need to only have firearms the people had back when it was written. Wilcox is no hero, all he did was get shot and killed. Nothing more, nothing less. Who said anything about gun banning? And there is no slandering going on. If you knew anything about the law. Thinking men and women don’t someone like you to convince them of your incoherent garbage. I’m still wondering where do you get the silly idea of someone taking your precise guns? You will simply die for a cause you never believed in anyways, if you take on the government. Check United States history on that account. So, the mindset you have is being strong with your guns, yet those without are weak. Yep typical gun nutter making threats. You never won anything. Guns are going away. The only people that concerns me is nutters like yourself and your anti government talk. And yes new laws are coming. Just keep holding onto those false beliefs you don’t really believe in. And please by all means continue to babble on about your guns. It’s only a matter of time you will be in the news after committing some heinous act with your guns. Deal with that or make your guns talk for you.

      • avatarS_J says:

        “Actually, your fellow mentally ill gun nutters are exactly why there will be changes to the 2nd Amendment, it’s time to change it for modern times. Otherwise, if you want to follow to your false interpretation of it, then you need to only have firearms the people had back when it was written.”

        Alright then, give up all your electronic communication devices, your computer, your phone, even your ballpoint pens and go back to ink quills and correspondence delivered by messengers on horseback. For the children.

        • avatardead cowboy gun nut says:

          Why of course and I expect you to also give up all modern conveniences as well. For the children.

      • avatarHannibal says:

        “Guns are going away.”

        Weird, I keep hearing from the media about how there’s more guns than ever!

        So Marine the answer to your question is: no, he doesn’t get it.

  66. avatarMarine 03 says:

    To the friends and family of Joesph Wilcox – “Your loss was not in vain. We will never forget his heroic act.” Life is short and uncertain but men like Joe who fight the good fight will always win in the end. I hope this message finds its way to you somehow. He and you are in our thoughts and prayers. We are sending money. We are sending condolences. And we are sending a warning to tyrants and criminals….”No more easy targets! NOW WE FIGHT.”

    • avatardead cowboy gun nut says:

      Don’t forget to issue your warning to the mentally ill like yourself with guns. You can’t just cherry pick your targets. Wilcox died a dishonorable death, nothing heroic about it.There is no FIGHT but with your deranged mind. You cowards aren’t going to do a damn thing but continue to ramble on about imagined slights or injustices or show up with your guns in public. Ironically, the criminals are just like you. Only difference is the labels you put on fellow gun nutters like yourself when you don’t want to admit there is a serious problem among your lot. It is interesting 40 percent of the military have some form of mental illness according to all the military branches.

      • avatarDev says:

        Joseph Wilcox was more of a man than you could hope to be. He gave his life trying to save other people. A person like that probably would have done something even if he didn’t have a gun on him. Again, all I see is childish ranting and name-calling from you.

        • avatardead cowboy gun nut says:

          Oh so now you know Wilcox personally? And how many lives did he save exactly? And pray tell how do you know what the sap would have done if he didn’t flash his gun and got killed. All of a sudden in death, the guy is a saint, a martyr, superman all rolled into one. All you know your fake hero could have been a wife beater or child molester. You should really put down the gun koolaid you are drinking.

        • avatarDev says:

          Your ignorance is amusing. Just listen to the sheriff of Clark County call the guy a hero. I’ll take hid word over yours any day, and he doesn’t have the greatest track record as a public officer.

    • avatarGrant says:

      You sound just like Jared Miller.

  67. avatardead cowboy gun nut says:

    Too lazy to look up facts or in denial of the high rate of suicide among gun owners?

  68. avatarMarine 03 says:

    I love this angle, “What could 100,000,000 gun owners do against the US Military?” Ummmm, utterly defeat them in less than 72 hours. Just the legal gun owners in Florida alone outnumber the US Army you simpleton! And what soldier is going to obey an unlawful order to fire on their fellow citizens? As a former marine I can assure you if some officer had ever ordered me to fire on Americans I would have discharged exactly 1 round…..right between his eyes. Then I would be draped in medals and immediately be promoted to his former position. You clearly never served your country and have no understanding of the oath we took. Who would fly the jet airplanes? Who would storm the beaches? Who would guide the missiles? No one because your fantasy of the military fighting to defend unconstitutional orders falls short. Sad really, your lack of understanding. Anyway, if you try to take the guns we will shoot you….. We have the guns…..We have the numbers…..We have the law/Constitution……and you have….um…..Harry Reid. Nice. I’ll be waiting for that constitutional amendment you promised would change the 2nd Amendment (zzzzzzzzzz). Seems like you guys have been threatening that for years…..(zzzzzzzzz). We win. You lose. Now remember talk is cheap…..action my boy is everything. Wake me up for the changes that you promised are coming to the Constitution……(zzzzzzzzzz).

  69. avatardead cowboy gun nut says:

    Oranges are bad for us, so apples are too. Love the comparison argument. Yet those who claim cars are just as dangerous as guns, everyday get into a car and drive. So they are basically claiming they put are putting other peoples lives at risk even more so than those who don’t own a gun or a car.

    • avatarDev says:

      Yes, that is true. The risk of death by automobile accident is more than triple the risk of death by firearm. In 2012 nearly 11% of the US population was killed in a car accident. We trust children as young as 15 with a license to go out and operate a dangerous piece of machinery. In most places one can’t even own a gun until 18.

      • avatardead cowboy gun nut says:

        And your sources of such numbers? 2012? Oh okay so cherry picking to fit your agenda.

  70. avatarMarine 03 says:

    Dev – keep the fool going! Let him ramble. He’s probably pro 2A anyway! I learned from liberal hoplophobes years ago this trick. Reverse psychology technique: Come on a forum and write stuff that is offensive…I mean just be as much of a jerk as possible. It wins 100 people to our cause with every post…..he’s just got to be pro-2A…..let him run! Sometimes I do this too and it works like a charm.

  71. avatardead cowboy gun nut says:

    I think it’s safe to assume you were given a dishonorable discharge from the military if you actually served. I’m willing to bet you were in the NG on trash duty. Guess what that means for you, when you decide to go Rambo on other citizens and die in a hail of bullets? It means you won’t receive a free burial at us tax payers expense.

    Wow look at you go mr. delusional with your outrageous fantasies. Obviously, you have spent most of your life watching movies about citizens overthrowing the government. Actually, your dimwitted foolish ass would be court martial and would have received the death penalty. Got news for you, you will be in a rude awaken if you try. The whole country doesn’t share those looney ideas you have inside your head. Most of the US is against your kind. Other people have the guns too. So, it means you more than likely will die. You are a fringe group that are small in numbers and yes the military would take you out. Go ahead and try to be a bad ass and fire your guns. Just remember as you lay there dying in a pool of your own blood, I told you so.

  72. avatarMarine 03 says:

    If technology wins wars why did America lose in Viet Nam to a bunch of barefooted men with rifles? If technology wins wars why haven’t we pacified Afghanistan in 13 years? ANSWER: Technology never won a single war….men with rifles win wars. Any weapons turned on the citizens of this nation by its government would quickly be reappropriated and used against them. Anyone who was found to have taken arms (violating their oath) against their own citizens would be summarily hung on the battle field and your hopes that the US Military would prevail against its citizens would evaporate like mist in a spring meadow. But please, please, PLEASE try. (Zzzzzzzzzzz)

  73. avatardead cowboy gun nut says:

    You do realize there was no men with rifles in the American Revolution, they had muskets and only a group of soldiers had rifles in the Civil War.

    So much for being in the military you don’t even know your own country’s military history.

    And history proves without a doubt, your fantasy civil war would never occur. You would have isolated incidents that yes would indeed be squashed by the military.

    All that is needed is a drone to drop one bomb on you and you wouldn’t be talking so brave.

    No one is really with you. You would go at it alone. And either end up dead or in prison. Your choice.

  74. avatarMarine 03 says:

    Whatever you say….but if you try to take my guns I will shoot you. No court martial. Oh, and America hasn’t court martialed & executed a service man since 1943. Nice try. One thing: you are correct that not all Americans feel as I do but the ones that agree with me are worth about 100 to 1 over the deadbeats you’d send against us. Haha. Remember we have the guns. We aren’t surrendering them either……you’ll just have to come take them from our cold dead hands….. Still waiting (zzzzzzzzzzz)

  75. avatarMarine 03 says:

    They didn’t have rifles in the American Revolution????? Sonny, you just showed your hand!!! HaHaHaHa! Just muskets eh? Boy you came to the wrong forum to try that nonsense. Google “Kentucky Long Rifle” you idiot and then tell me who doesn’t know military history?! If others on TTAG didn’t catch that I’d be surprised…..I assure you there were rifles used in every battle of the American Revolution. By both sides…..WHAT A MAROOOON! No rifles in the American Revoltion? WaHaHHaAHAHa…..someone doesn’t know military history here, but it is you…..again google Kentucky Long Rifle you simpleton……hahahahahahahahahaha!

    • avatardead cowboy gun nut says:

      It’s good you have the ability to google information since you aren’t knowledgeable.

      BTW the musket was the preferred choice of firearm during the Revolution War.

      The weapon never fully replaced the musket until the development of the Minié ball, mainly due to slower reload times from a tighter fitting lead ball, and the fouling of the bore after prolonged usage, eventually preventing loading, and rendering the weapon useless until thoroughly cleaned.

      But nice try at trying to appear to be knowledgeable and failing miserably.

      • avatarS_J says:

        “You do realize there was no men with rifles in the American Revolution, they had muskets and only a group of soldiers had rifles in the Civil War.”

        Your words. Eat them, preferably with a side of crow.

        • avatardead cowboy gun nut says:

          Why would I need to eat my words? When I have proven beyond a doubt, you fools have no idea what you are spewing.

        • avatarHannibal says:

          Because you are either a liar or a fool. You said there were no rifles to make some stupid point, which is wholly incorrect. Then you tried to twist your own words to make yourself seem like less of an idiot. Who are you trying to fool here?

  76. avatardead cowboy gun nut says:

    Again, where do you get someone saying they are trying to take your guns? I will shoot you, sure you will. And yes court martial if you were still an active member of the military. Oh and America last court martial and executed of a service man since 1963. Nice try. Umm, very few American agree with you. You are a fringe minority look negative upon. Haa,. Remember we have the guns, bombs, tanks, drones. And yes you would surrender if push came to shove. if you rather die your cold dead hand wouldn’t be holding your gun. Keep waiting and drooling your nonsense.

  77. avatarMarine 03 says:

    Hey….have you brushed up on Kentucky Long Rifles yet brainiac? Tell me again how there were NO RIFLES used in the revolutionary war. Hahahahahaha……..idiot

    • avatardead cowboy gun nut says:

      Obviously, your kentucky long riles weren’t a popular choice simply because of the slow loading times. Too bad you got yourself all worked up in a lather and failed to see why muskets were the firearm of choice.

      • avatarHannibal says:

        You didn’t say “popular choice” you disingenuous troll, you said there weren’t any.

        Isn’t it nice that we can all get together and agree about this shmuck and leave our differences aside for a few hours?

  78. avatarbenny says:

    Dead cowboy…I see calls for facts and/or sources to back your points up….but I have yet to see one of either.
    Gonna pony up, cowboy?

    And emotional queen?! Oh how thoughtful of you :) I do consider myself to be more sensitive than most, but I’m by no means on par with royalty ;) you flatter me

  79. avatarMarine 03 says:

    “You do realize there were NO MEN with rifles in the revolutionary war.” – Dead Cowboys Nuts.
    -
    “You do realize you don’t know diddly squat, right?” – Marine 03 (who doesn’t know military history now??? Waiting)

    • avatardead cowboy gun nut says:

      Now show the percentage of men in the Revolution War who had Kentucky Long Rifles. I am betting it was a very low percentage.

      • avatarDev says:

        Again, a childish argument. Your statement that only muskets was proven wrong, so instead of accepting that now you are changing the subject to the number of rifles used. Brilliant strategy, chap.

        • avatardead cowboy gun nut says:

          Actually, “chap’ it was a musket.

          rifles” were essentially smoothbore muskets with much longer barrels, such as the famed Pennsylvania or Kentucky rifle of the Revolutionary War..

        • avatarDev says:

          Rifle is a weapon with a rifled barrel. Hence the name. You’re close, but still wrong.

  80. avatarbenny says:

    (They still haven’t fixed the mobile reply system???)
    Yes,sadly, it did. I just got off work and posted that comment on lunch.

  81. avatarMarine 03 says:

    Kentucky Long Rifle…..HAHAHAHA……. This is just too easy. I win again, and you still haven’t got what it takes to take guns.

  82. avatardead cowboy gun nut says:

    rifles” were essentially smoothbore muskets with much longer barrels, such as the famed Pennsylvania or Kentucky rifle of the Revolutionary War.. Oh lookie there slow one, it was a musket. Actually, you lose and it won’t matter in the end about taking your gun. you would be dead, if you decide to over throw the government. After all, you would cease to have any rights as an American citizen and would be committing treason and that is good as dead.

    • avatarDev says:

      Since you are getting your information from Wikipedia, look at the sentence where it specifically mentions rifling. That is what makes a rifle a rifle. So close!

    • avatarHannibal says:

      No one can honestly be this stupid… you really are trying to talk about ‘rifles’ without knowing that their very defining characteristic is ‘rifling’?

  83. avatarMarine 03 says:

    There were NO rifles used in the American Revolution? ***This is our competition? Hahahahahahahahahaha. Who doesn’t know military history now dumbo?

    • avatardead cowboy gun nut says:

      I stand by my earlier post that you indeed don’t know military history. A converted musket is your rifle. Nice try.

  84. avatarMarine 03 says:

    No rifles……… Except the thousands of Kentucky Long Rifles he meant

  85. avatardead cowboy gun nut says:

    A convert musket isn’t a real rifle.

  86. avatarMarine 03 says:

    Must be an Obama supporter……..NO Rifles used in the revolutionary war……..is this all the left has to throw at us? Goodnight I go to bed with a grin. Google Kentucky Long Rifle and then google the word “Rifling/lands & grooves. Haha…..it’s like debating children folks. Goodnight TTAG

    • avatardead cowboy gun nut says:

      Yeah that has to be it. You need to take your delusional alcoholic self to bed and stop urinating on yourself over your self proclaimed victory.

  87. avatardead cowboy gun nut says:

    Two things we learned from the Las Vegas shooting.

    1. Most gun nutters have a hero complex, have no situational training with their guns.

    2. And more than likely will end up getting themselves or other people killed.

    That’s the lesson about why conceal carry is actually a myth.

    • avatarDev says:

      Aha, here we go, back to making baseless statements with no supporting evidence. In addition to avoiding the arguments where he was proven to be wrong. This is what we are facing, people, and this is why calm debate works.

      • avatardead cowboy gun nut says:

        Really? What more proof do you need other than a dead man who had a loaded gun aimed at a shooter, yet ended up getting shot himself by another shooter he didnt expect.

        • avatarrich says:

          looking at the original source, that seems to be just what happened.

          All three victims had guns. (the two cops and the guy with conceal/carry).

          In fact top article is misleading

          “After that confrontation, the two murderers killed themselves.”

          Except that isn’t quite what happened…

          “As he moved to confront Jerad Miller, Wilcox passed Amanda, not realizing the two were together. She slipped behind Wilcox and shot him at close range.

          Within minutes more Metro officers arrived on the scene in response to 911 calls. McMahill said they initially blocked the back door with a patrol car. After Jerad Miller shot the door from the inside in an effort to open it, a five-officer team entered and exchanged gunfire with the couple.

          The shooting raged in the store’s automotive section, spilling oil and antifreeze onto the floor. The two were hiding behind items Jerad Miller had stacked around them for protection, but Amanda was hit by a bullet during the firefight, McMahill said.

          Pinned down by police and blocked from all exits, Jerad laid down in front of Amanda, and she shot him several times. Then she shot herself in the head.”

          http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/las-vegas/shooters-carried-arsenal-supplies-sunday-rampage

  88. avatarbenny says:

    Well I mean it IS true, so I would hope you would tell the truth.

    So let me ask you, respectfully of course, have you ever shot a gun?

    • avatardead cowboy gun nut says:

      Shooting a gun has nothing to do with it, even a child can pull a trigger. example loaded guns laying around the house from an irresponsible gun owner.

      It comes down to situational training with a gun. Most gun nutters get a gun and think they’re expert shots. That’s great when you shoot at a defenseless animal in the woods or your empty beer cans. But, its not reality when another shooter is getting the drop on you and shoots you. It makes your gun worthless, therefore, Wilcox was a fool to believe his gun would save his life.

      • avatarDev says:

        Except had he not been killed the gun would have saved his life. You can make all the conjectures you like, but just simply search this one website for defensive gun uses in which a person was able to prevent a crime thanks to his or her firearm. By your logic, the police should never carry guns because they won’t be protected by them. You are wallowing in fallacies.

        • avatardead cowboy gun nut says:

          “Except had he not been killed the gun would have saved his life.”

          You don’t get it, the gun didn’t save his life. The gun became useless.

          wallowing in fallacies would be your act.

          Where was all the other conceal carry people? Are you going to tell me he was the only person who was conceal carry?

        • avatarDev says:

          The gun didn’t save HIS life; it saved the lives of other people in the store. People carry guns to protect themselves, their families and loved ones, and yes even innocent strangers. Again, your statement that the gun is useless can be extrapolated to imply that police should not carry guns because they are useless and may not save the lives of the officer. Like the two unfortunate officers in the restaurant.

        • avatarrich says:

          “Except had he not been killed the gun would have saved his life.”

          I would point out that’s circular logic.

          The gun idea would have worked…. if it had worked.

          Fact is cops get shot all the time. I had a friend who was a cop who got shot by her own gun. Guns are only really defensive if you get to shoot the other guy first. And even then that’s iffy. (and then we have lots of instances where people stopped shooters without guns)

          And lots of those defensive gun uses are often lacking in details.. like how often the shooter had stopped on his own by the time the other guy with a gun had shown up.

  89. avatarGuyFromV says:

    Wow, this guy is still here? I ate some lasagna, showered, checked my Dark Souls game, quit…and he’s still here moonbatting it up.

  90. avatarJohn in AK says:

    Men, you are feeding the troll. He is a BOY. He is not educated; He is not logical. He is clearly not knowledgeable on the subject at hand. He is NOT the face of our adversaries. They are better than this.

    Let it go.

    • avatarDev says:

      Actually, if you read the comments on various web sites, this person is the stereotypical gun grabber. Surely he’s not one of the leaders, but he is they type of person who they preach to; the person who buys the lies and the emotional rhetoric without thinking or researching for themselves. As we can see, they don’t accept the facts when presented, they just change their argument.

      • avatardead cowboy gun nut says:

        Now a gun grabber, oh man this just continues to get better. You fools are so predictable with your little talking points. Do you go down your pre made list?

        Your opinion is not facts. And I asked you to several times show your proof of what you claim as facts and you continue to fail to show any facts.

        You simply are in denial and don’t like anyone to say anything bad about your precious guns.

    • avatardead cowboy gun nut says:

      Is that the best you can do? And you live in Arkansas a state with one of the highest uneducated population in the country.

      • avatarDev says:

        According to the 2003 count Arkansas was NOT one of the highest. There were 14 states with a higher rate of illiteracy. Since they do this survey every 10 years there are no 2013 statistics finalized yet. Again, facts!
        http://nces.ed.gov/naal/estimates/StateEstimates.aspx

        • avatardead cowboy gun nut says:

          Hey now did you know that information before or after you googled it? I’m glad to see you are finally getting the hang of showing your facts, with links. I’m mighty proud of you.

        • avatarDev says:

          Yes, I knew Arkansas was not one of the “most uneducated” states as you claim beforehand, because I know that the literacy rate is much higher in the more populated states. Simple to figure out, really, if one does a lot of reading and is able to recall what they have read. Still, we have yet to see YOU prove any of your ridiculous claims with facts? You are proven wrong, you are presented with facts, and then you change the subject instead of defending your point. We do know that it is because your points are just made up to begin with; the rhetoric of the emotional.

  91. avatarrich says:

    Wait… so this guy stopped them by… being shot in the back?

    I mean the whole argument was “if only there had been a good guy with a gun”. Well there was a good guy with a gun. He even had warning which is more then most get in these kinds of shootings. And it just made him a target. Which is what a lot of people have been saying all along.

    The problem wasn’t’ his intentions. I am sure he very much meaning to stop the shooting.

    The problem is it just didn’t’ work. Reading the original article I can’t’ find where Wilcox’s actions stopped anyone. The cops were already responding. That appears to have been why the couple had their plans cut short.

    And trying to spin it as otherwise this way is kind of gross.

    • avatarDev says:

      The police were on the way, as you state. He tried stopping the person he saw with the gun, and was shot by the woman. That took time away from the two murderers. However much time it took, it gave the police that much more time to arrive. The fact the he died does not mean he didn’t succeed in stopping more people from dying. We don’t know that for sure, but there is more reasonable evidence to believe he gave people more time to escape and the police more time to arrive than there is to back a claim that his actions were a waste.

      • avatardead cowboy gun nut says:

        You are speculating and contradicting yourself.

        “We don’t know that for sure, but there is more reasonable evidence to believe he gave people more time to escape and the police more time to arrive than there is to back a claim that his actions were a waste.”

        More reasonable evidence to believe? The people already were trying to escape and the police were already on their way to the store.

        Just admit you want it to be the guy did something that didn’t make losing his life a worthless cause. geez.

        • avatarDev says:

          As are you speculating, but my conjecture is more rooted in factual analysis than yours is, by a very, very wide margin.

      • avatarrich says:

        “The police were on the way, as you state. ”
        A fact the blog seemed to have glossed over…

        “He tried stopping the person he saw with the gun, and was shot by the woman.”

        Which means he did not succeed.

        “That took time away from the two murderers. However much time it took, it gave the police that much more time to arrive. ”

        Oh dear…

        Ok think about what you just said…. Wilcox kept people from being shot… by being shot.

        By that logic every victim ever killed by a shooter stopped their shooter.

        And never mind what the source material actually says.. that the shooters shot in the air implying they might not have been planning on shooting random people there anyway. Certainly they gave up the element of surprise that mass shooters tend to rely on.

        Which might be why the Sheriff called Wilcox’s death “senseless”, as in without discernible meaning or purpose.

        “The fact the he died does not mean he didn’t succeed in stopping more people from dying.”

        that is conjecture that has no basis in fact nor logic. These guys just murdered two cops in cold blood. I doubt they were phased by this one guy. In fact the entirety of the “good guy with a gun” argument has always been based on conjecture. If it really worked with any real consistency, it should have worked here. It didn’t. Wilcox never even got to fire his gun.

        Though your argument strays from that anyway. One doesn’t need a fire arm to martyr one’s self.

        “We don’t know that for sure..”

        That doesn’t’ seems to be stopping a lot of people here, including the original boggler who assumed things not in the original source he cited.

        “but there is more reasonable evidence to believe he gave people more time to escape….”

        Not from the source material. In fact the shot fired in the air by the shooters seems to have given people more time to react then Wilcox did.

        I man really, your argument here is that the shooters couldn’t’ shoot people because they were too busy shooting someone.

  92. avatarbenny says:

    I was mostly asking just to see if you had shot one before. I’m very curious and was hoping you’d indulge.

    That said, I don’t think I’m an expert by any means. I can honestly say I probably would have ran if something similar happened here tomorrow. I don’t have the confidence, awareness, or training to deal with something like that. I may catch flak for that but it’s the truth.

    Which is exactly why I don’t have my CCW yet. Well…that and I don’t have a gun I can ACTUALLY conceal worth a damn. But I want to gain confidence and learn cues and be as prepared as I can before I carry such a responsibility

    • avatardead cowboy gun nut says:

      Now you made some reasonable points, that I respect. And not like these other clowns just flying off the handle about guns.

  93. avatardead cowboy gun nut says:

    “As are you speculating, but my conjecture is more rooted in factual analysis than yours is, by a very, very wide margin.”

    Odd, I only see you making that claim about yourself.

    • avatarDev says:

      Try it again in English, please, I don’t see what your point is in that nonsense you wrote.

      • avatardead cowboy gun nut says:

        What you don’t understand your own comments you post? Your own comments aren’t English enough for you?
        BTW stats from 2003 means nothing for current projections. And it’s now 11 yrs not 10 yrs, I guess math wasn’t part of your education.

        You so desperately want that guy to be a hero you will embellish anything to make it appear he was.

        Never mind you continue to speculate and contradict yourself.

        • avatarDev says:

          I haven’t once contradicted myself, although you have. The stats from 2003 are meaningful because they are an official government survey. The study has results from 1993 and 2003, which is ten years. It is now 2014 and the results from the 2013 study have not been presented yet. These studies take time to be analyzed and finalized, that is why we see them published at least a year later than the year the data was taken. Once again, you show ignorance of how things work. The one undeniable fact that cannot be disproven is that it took time for the two scumbags to kill Mr. Wilcox. The time they spent paying attention to him was extra time given to the police to arrive. Whether or not that made a difference actually is speculation, but a reasonable person can rightly assume that the time they spent killing him helped slow down their rampage. We don’t know if it was seconds or if it were minutes.

          You have spent so much time this even making completely irrational and baseless statements as well as ridiculous assumptions; that is speculation. Especially since you have not once shown any evidence to back up any of your claims, and when presented with facts that deflate your argument you change your argument or start name calling like a young child on the playground who got sand in his diapers.

          Your behavior and words tonight typify the behavior of the gun control nuts out there, the mindless drones who believe without seeking truth for themselves. I have continued to engage you because I am amused, and I am proving that when a person bases their argument on lies, misinformation and mindless emotion they can never prevail in a debate, and they will never acquiesce to the opposing view when that view has been shown to be more truthful, likely or factual. Of course I never expected you to behave with integrity and decorum after reading your first post. I do enjoy exposing your ignorance and immaturity, however, and I hope I am not only entertaining people but showing them how to respond to idiotic behavior and comments on internet forums.

  94. avatarbenny says:

    I know there are people who feel the basic CCW course is all they need, and for the average Joe, it is. I’ve grown to see that good old Murphy is a fan of my life, however. Id walk into a Texas 7 style showdown the very next day with my luck -__-

    But I’m ready to sleep. Work killed me today. If you haven’t shot a gun before, give it some thought. I don’t mean go out and buy one, go shoot a rental. If you have, then I guess we agree to disagree.

  95. avatardead cowboy gun nut says:

    Where was all the other conceal carry people? Are you going to tell me Wilcox was the only person who was conceal carry?

  96. avatardead cowboy gun nut says:

    “Your behavior and words tonight typify the behavior of the gun control nuts out there, the mindless drones who believe without seeking truth for themselves. I have continued to engage you because I am amused, and I am proving that when a person bases their argument on lies, misinformation and mindless emotion they can never prevail in a debate, and they will never acquiesce to the opposing view when that view has been shown to be more truthful, likely or factual. Of course I never expected you to behave with integrity and decorum after reading your first post. I do enjoy exposing your ignorance and immaturity, however, and I hope I am not only entertaining people but showing them how to respond to idiotic behavior and comments on internet forums.”

    Is this your parting “shot”? Ahh so much for the pointing the finger at name calling. Oh wow, what a honor it was of you continuing to engage me. The only thing you proved was you have a delusional mind full of hero fantasies. No on has agreed with anything you are babbling on about. All your support left a while ago. It’s only you making these fallacies. You are truly blinded by your own blissful ignorance.

    I’m not the one whom is satisfied with senseless murder of innocent people unlike yourself. And the only reason you are even commenting about the incident is because a fellow gun nut was murdered.

    I haven’t once contradicted myself, although you have. The stats from 2003 are meaningful because they are an official government survey. The study has results from 1993 and 2003, which is ten years. It is now 2014 and the results from the 2013 study have not been presented yet. These studies take time to be analyzed and finalized, that is why we see them published at least a year later than the year the data was taken. Once again, you show ignorance of how things work. The one undeniable fact that cannot be disproven is that it took time for the two scumbags to kill Mr. Wilcox. The time they spent paying attention to him was extra time given to the police to arrive. Whether or not that made a difference actually is speculation, but a reasonable person can rightly assume that the time they spent killing him helped slow down their rampage. We don’t know if it was seconds or if it were minutes.

    Umm yes you have contradicted yourself, you present dated information as your source of proof and then give some far off excuse of why its good enough currently. Once again, how quickly can someone shoot and kill another person with a gun? Seconds, minutes? Wilcox committed a dumb stupid mistake and it cost him his life. that’s the blunt truth you continue to deny and he had no factor what so ever. The police were already on the way, what is it you don’t comprehend about that? There was no extra time gained by Wilcox actions. Stop trying to romance his death. Of course all you have is speculation. I have been trying to tell you that for a while now.

    “reasonable person can rightly assume”..that my friend you are not. There is no rightly assuming about it. Wilcox was a non factor and simply just minor inconvenience for the shooters.

    • avatarDev says:

      And my point is proven. Perhaps one day you and your kind will learn how to effectively debate. I see you still have no real evidence to back up any of your opinions, which of course you are entitled to. No matter how outlandish and illogical they be.

      • avatardead cowboy gun nut says:

        You only proved your own smug ignorance. Perhaps, one day you and your kind will actually have an education and debate effectively. I see you still have nothing to back up any of your claims, all you have is your personal opinion. There has been nothing outlandish or illogical about anything I posted.

        • avatarDev says:

          HAHAHA ok, yes, keep thinking that while I read through the links you…oh, wait, you haven’t linked anything. I’ll let you think you won the argument if it makes you feel good about yourself.

  97. avatardead cowboy gun nut says:

    Wilcox is no hero, only someone who was foolish enough to get in over his head and lost his life because of his gun. His actions was a non factor and saved no lives.

  98. avatardead cowboy gun nut says:

    One link and you think you accomplished something, Yeah, okay…LOL

    There’s no letting me think I won the argument. I did win the so called argument and yes I always feel good about myself without needing validation online like you do.

  99. avatardead cowboy gun nut says:

    Where was all the other conceal carry people? Are you going to tell me Wilcox was the only person who was conceal carry?

    Proves conceal carry is only a myth. Just like other shootings. No conceal carriers stood up to save the day.

    • avatarMarcusAurelius says:

      How does this prove that concealed carry is a “myth” when contrasted against the million or so incidents where an armed citizen stops a crime that was being perpetrated against them?

  100. avatarMarcus Aurelius says:

    Dead cowboy: every year there are more people alive because they had a gun than there are people dead because someone what had a gun. Whether or not Wilcox saved lives doesn’t really matter, it is only a single datum. That is what people refer to as “anecdotal evidence.”

    Any single incident can only disprove the claim that such an incident is impossible, since no one had ever claimed that it is impossible for someone with a concealed firearm to be killed, there is nothing for this incident to serve as proof for.

    The fact remains that gun ownership benefits society as a whole. I refer you to the works of Gary Kleck and John Lott. I also refer you to the fact that the Washington D.C. homicide rate has fallen since their most draconian gun control law was overturned, and it has fallen by more than the national average, which has continued to fall through the sunsetting of the assault weapons ban and an increase in gun ownership in recent years. I also point out to you that violence in the UK had risen since they implemented a hand gun ban, specifically gun violence has just about doubled there.

    I don’t understand why they is so much hate in your heart. Why don’t you actually try to understand what we are saying instead of finding excuses to believe what others have taught you?

    Tragedies like this have always happened, with or without guns. The happyland fire, the Bath Township school massacre, the Oklahoma City bombing, the poisoning of aspirin bottles, the list is endless.

    Your assert the failure of Wilcox in this story (which has not been established with any certainty) and I counter with the success of Nick Meli in the Clackamas mall shooting. There is no doubt that it was a confrontation with Meli that caused that shooter to initiate the suicide phase of his plan.

    No matter how dearly you hold your beliefs, it is an act of pure dishonesty to refuse to consider what your opponents say. You only mention statistics, you refuse to cite the actual numbers, that lend credence to your established beliefs. Certainly, it happens that a small child finds a gun that should have been securely stored. The number is extremely small and far outweighed by pretty much all other conceivable forms of accidental injury. And I will concede that something else being far more dangerous is no excuse. However, I retreat to you that there are more families kept safely together in the aftermath of a home invasion or s street mugging because of a legally owned gun than torn apart through gun treated tragedy.

    In short: the pro gun side of this debate is right. We have are right in the moral and ethical sense and in the social utility sense. No doubt you would be shunned by many of your friends if you were to whose this position, but doesn’t that make your want to question those sacred tenets? I know it did for me. In a previous time when gun control was part of the national conversation I noticed that all of the main stream of published public opinion presented the issue as a foregone conclusion while trying to keep up a facade of “honest debate.” It didn’t sit right with me, so I started doing research and noticed that the reduction in crime that the 1994 AWB had been credited with actually started two years before it had passed. I’ve continued to research and write frankly the case for gun control odd pretty grim. There is really no evidence that laws about guns help anything.

    This is, of course, my opinion. I know you are so keen to remind us of that, and what your say is your opinion. But the results of Gary Kleck or John Lott, or the FBI statistics on homicide and violent crime in general are not an opinion. You can bet none of them count adult gang bangers as “children” to try and make a point.

    Nite, will you respond to the content of what I have written or dismiss it out of hand? Dismissing it weakens your stance and strengthens ours. If you respond will you use actual facts or figures? Place your bets folks.

  101. avatardh34 says:

    Wow…Mr. Wilcox really touched a nerve with the Anti’s.  Must have been since Shannon was just saying how this type of thing NEVER happens.  Not one but by my count, at least three trolls on TTAG (though it’s always possible it’s the same one…)
     
    First, my condolences to Mr. Wilcox’s family.  He stood up for what he believed is right, and quite frankly it doesn’t matter what his motivation was.  It’s pretty obvious he was trying to prevent bloodshed.  The world has changed in the past few years.   15 years ago conventional wisdom for a hijacking was don’t confront, wait it out, negotiate and everyone comes home.  Now anyone suspect of hijacking is beat to a pulp by the passengers who feel they have nothing to lose.  Same with shootings Within a week of each other, in Seattle and Las Vegas, a bystander intervened, using the weapons at hand, to stop the violence. 
     
    You seldom get to pick the time and place of moments like this when they occur…be it a DGU, car accident, medical emergency whatever…they are imperfect situations, with imperfect knowledge and imperfect outcomes.    You play the hand dealt and you very rarely get the opportunity to study the situation before stepping in. So while our windbag troll would have been curled up in the fetal position rocking back and forth, under the rack of women’s clothes he was going to try on, praying for his life, Mr. Wilcox stepped up and tried to do something.   You know, the something that the anti’s scream about…something needs to be done!…somebody do something!  That something may have created the tactical pause that kept our windbag troll from being shot and bleeding out alone on a dirty Walmart floor wishing he had just buggered one more sheep in his short, insignificant life…or hopefully someone more deserving like a child, a mom, a police officer…We will not know.  We just know he tried to do something, and for that his actions were heroic. 
     
    Don’t engage the anti’s trolls.  It’s like arguing with an ex-wife, and at best you’re just going to make him late to his shift at Taco Bell

  102. avatarJT says:

    “Before they were able to enter the store”

    As far as I know. They walked into the store and fired a single round into the air, Wilcox was in the back of the store and ran to confront them when he heard it.

    “After that confrontation, the two murderers killed themselves.”

    Ya, because by then, the police had showed up. Unfortunately, this guy didn’t do anything but get himself killed.

    • avatarThomasR says:

      I disagree JT; Joseph Robert Wilcox died for something. He death showed that he was willing to risk his life for his fellow human beings. I believe what a person is willing to give their life for defines what a person is willing to live for.

      He showed us that life is more than just survival at any cost. Just as a father or mother running back into a burning building to save their children; or a firefighter, cop or soldier that risks or gives their life in trying to save their comrades; it was not a waste if they lose their life in the process. It shows a courage and a commitment that we should all learn from and hopefully emulate.

  103. avatarTrish says:

    The armed guy? You mean the one they murdered? That is the guy that stopped him? Does anyone find it ironic that all 3 people who were nurdered were armed? And last week the shooting in Seattle ended becAue a guy was armed with MACE not a gun. Ammosexuals just keep talking and looking stupider and stupider as it becomes more and more clear that more guns are definitely not the answer

    • avatarMarcusAurelius says:

      There are more lives saved every year because someone had a gun than people who die because someone had a gun in this country. The way this single incident played out does not change that. No one has ever said it was a guarantee.

  104. avatarBrian says:

    The death of Mr. Wilcox only proves why possessing a firearm in public is a bad idea. Pumped up by pro-gun rhetoric, he thought he could save the day and be the poster child of the NRA. Instead, he is dead. The lesson from this tragic event is that when you lack situation awareness and you lack training in confronting armed criminals, the most likely outcome will be getting yourself killed. His actions did not save a single life, but cost him his own life. All the media reports have converged on the fact that the store was empty when this man tried to confront the criminals. The criminals then barricaded themselves inside the store and it was only when the police engaged them did they commit suicide. However, had Mr. Wilcox accomplished his goal, all of the gun nuts would have pointed to this instance as the reason why everyone should own and carry a gun in public. But he since he’s dead, the gun nuts call his actions heroic and fail to take responsibility for all the ignorant rhetoric that cost this man his life.

    • avatarMarcusAurelius says:

      The death of WIlcox proves no such thing, cerainly not when countered with a million or so incidents every year where an armed citized uses his gun to stop a crime that was happening to them. Many of these people saving their own lives and many of them never having to fire a shot to achieve this.

      It is irresponsible of you to latch on to a single incident and ignore the multitude of others where an armed citizen irrefutably saved lives and stopped a bad guy.

      The Clackamas Mall shooting was stopped from becoming a mass killing because an armed citizen presented resistance. Even though he did not shoot the attacker, he forced a start to the suicide phase of the shooters plan, saving an untold number of lives.

      No one has ever claimed that a good guy with a gun is guaranteed to stop a bad guy with a gun, we have always argued that it is the best way to do so, sometimes even the only way, despite the rare outlier where pepper spray suffices.

      The fact is that our society is healthier because we have guns than it would otherwise be and safer because some of us carry our guns in our daily lives. The numbers don’t lie and it is dishonest of you to present a few incidents as proof of your views while ignoring literally tens of thousands of incidents every year where a life saved because of a gun (non police incidents only) that prove you are wrong.

      It is irrefutably true that more lives are saved by guns than taken with them in this country.

  105. avatarNishi says:

    No doubt he was brave and courageous in attempting to stop the shooter, but that is some bizarre logic to say he actually stopped them…by getting shot?

    • avatarMarcusAurelius says:

      Often these mass murderers are spurred to start the suicide phase of their attacks at their very first encounter with armed resistance. That is what people are basing this on. Though at this point it does seem that this incident did not happen this way.

  106. avatarGrant says:

    He didn’t stop anything. All he did was get himself killed. Not *even being aware* of the other shooter is an indication that had he not been killed, other innocents could have been injured/killed in a firefight. It is foolish to think this is bravery, IMO.

  107. avatartodd mendenhall says:

    Mr. Wilcox thank you for protecting fellow citizens from social trash! If we said “No to limitation and yes to family protection”, America would be better. Those who dont believe in a human right to protection has never fealt deadly fear for them or family. God bless America

  108. avatarMarine 03 says:

    A Hypothetical Question: Assume just for a moment we could speak with the dead. We could talk with all the people who have been murdered by mass shooters. We could offer them a chance to relive that terrible day and hold out a pistol and say, “You get one chance to relive the moment when you were murdered and here’s a gun. Do you want it?” We all know not a damn one of them would reply, “No thanks. Things went fine that day. I’ll just redo it all over again and you can keep that evil gun.” Common sense tells me they’d climb over themselves to take the pistol! Is it a guarantee they won’t be shot down again? Of course not, but it would give them a chance to live this time instead of dying as they ran or begged for their life from a madman. No one has ever said a concealed firearm makes you invincible but I’m sure it would give you a fighting chance and even if you died you’d “die with your boots on” (as Iron Maiden said). Life is short and uncertain. Not a single person reading this has a guarantee they’ll be alive tomorrow. Not one! But given the chance of not only saving your life this time but also possibly the lives of many others too, I’m certain the dead would vote unanimously to hit replay holding a weapon. Joesph Wilcox is a hero. He died a man’s death not groveling like some coward who assumed their safety was the responsibility of others.

  109. avatarMarine 03 says:

    If you are an adult your safety is your own responsibility. It is not, nor has it ever been the responsibility of others! This is something a mouse knows instinctively.

  110. avatarVernondo says:

    I agree with “Grant” (above). I’ve yet to read anything about Mr. Wilcox having any training in combat arms or tactics beyond what it takes in NV to get a CWP. While it’s admirable that Mr. Wilcox was willing to try to save lives, it’s obvious that he had little situational awareness, and his actions easily could have participated a firefight in a crowded commercial building.

    Hand-guns are no pantica, and those that think they have what it takes to “pack heat to protect myself & my fellow citizens” best have some real combat training and a couple thousand rounds downrange least they become a “bullet-magnet and get a few unwitting bystanders killed. Every hand-gun should be licenced, and a any CWP wannabe should be required to have serious, ongoing combat training.

  111. avatarGunsGoneWild says:

    Interesting – Carrying a concealed weapon got this guy shot, the opposite of the pipedream of why one carries a weapon. Hero, or just a victim of those advocating common citizens carrying weapons.

  112. avatarLisa says:

    He did not stop anything. He was shot by the woman who he did not see and never even fired his weapon. Three good guys with guns were unable to stop the bad guys with the guns. So Shannon is right and the NRA is wrong.

  113. avatarDev says:

    I love all the cowards commenting about Mr. Wilcox saying he wasn’t a hero because he died. Yet you are probably the same people who will say a firefighter is a hero because he died trying to save others, even if he didn’t succeed.

  114. avatarTheHoney Badger says:

    Hey, dead cowboy gun nut, someone asked you a question. Why haven’t you answered that question?
    Have you ever fired a gun?
    Stop evading and simply answer the question.Yes or no? Have you ever fired a gun?

  115. avatarTheHoney Badger says:

    GunsGoneWild
    June 10, 2014
    Interesting – Carrying a concealed weapon got this guy shot, the opposite of the pipedream of why one carries a weapon. Hero, or just a victim of those advocating common citizens carrying weapons.

    He got himself killed because he hesitated. It had nothing to do with the gun or even having the gun. He died because he drew and hesitated. Bad, bad, bad move!

  116. avatarTheHoney Badger says:

    Here’s how it went down. Wilcox id’d perp. Wilcox drew gun and placed thumb up his ass. Perp’s girlfriend shot Wilcox in the back. Wilcox is dead.

    Here’s how it should have gone down. Wilcox id’d perp. Wilcox drew gun and shot perp until perp was on the ground. Wilcox is a hero.

    Then girlfriend behind Wilcox has options. She shoots Wilcox. Wilcox is a dead hero. Or she freaks out and runs off. Wilcox is a hero.

    The only way Wilcox can be a hero is if he had pulled the trigger!

  117. avatarTheHoney Badger says:

    So here is a word to the wise: WHEN YOU PURPOSELY STEP INTO THE RED ZONE, WHATEVER OR WHEREVER IT MAY BE, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER HESITATE!

    • avatarJoe F says:

      Haha….more trying to spin this as somehow not FAR-RIGHT, anti-government people. Sure they were conspiracy people, and the mask March was inspired by ANYONE who saw V is for Vendetta and is against government surveillance….not just Occupy people. Plenty of far-right conspiracy nuts like Alex Jones support things like. Million Mask March. But these murderers were anti-.gift, pro-gun, Bundy-supporting haters of liberals (his Facebook page is full of anti-liberal stuff). Keep trying to spin your narrative, but even Fox News knew to go silent…since they are accomplices. They gave like 6 lines to the CCW guy a day later, but not much since.

  118. avatarJoe F says:

    “Never hesitate,” sounds good, but in theory it would have killed an innocent person in the Gabby Giffords shooting. When the “hero” CCW guy got to the scene, they had already disarmed the perp and had him on the ground. The CCW guy assumed the citizen who had disarmed the shooter WAS THE SHOOTER and almost shot him, but said, “Drop it! Drop it!” instead. Had he not hesitated, he’d have killed one of the real (non-CCW) heroes.
    I’m a CCW carrier, and gunsmith, but all of this debate is insane and pointless. These were crazy conspiracy nuts who were far-right wing, anti-govt losers. MOST NRA members are fine with some stricter laws like dealing better with personal sales and better background checks, etc. So while the NRA may be a fear-mongering lobbyist group, the members are mostly rational. Fox News gave this shooting all of 6 sentences the other day–because even they know who their audience is, and how even they can’t spin this enough to make it look good for the narrative they push. Good luck fighting over who is a hero or whatever. I think it’s a dumb thing to debate. At least he did something, which is more than anyone else. Is he a hero? It just depends. Were the passengers of Flight 93, who did the normal thing and just fought to save their own lives really “heroes”? Is anyone who tries to save himself and others a hero? If you think so, then sure. If you don’t think so, then no. But why spend all this energy arguing?!
    I agree it’s a bad article. He didn’t prevent a mass shooting, so it doesn’t disprove that woman’s statement about good guys with guns. That said, I’m a good guy with a gun. And if my family is safe, I’ll do my best to help stop a bad guy with a gun.

  119. avatarDJ9 says:

    Late update: these folks may have been Occupy or other far-left protesters.

    “While living in Lafayette, Jerad and his wife Amanda took part in last November’s “Million Mask March” – a gathering of protesters from the Occupy movement, anarchists, and hacktivists.”

    http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2014/06/10/couple-responsible-for-vegas-shooting-spree-recently-lived-in-indiana/

Leave a Reply

Please use your real name instead of you company name or keyword spam.