Seattle

We recently reported that the suspect in today’s shooting at a Seattle college was stopped when school staff sprayed pepper spray in the guy’s eyes and tackled him to the ground as he was trying to reload. That chain of events would normally play perfectly into the gun control activist’s playbook — the idea that you don’t need a gun to defend yourself and we need magazine restrictions to force shooters to reload more often and give good guys a chance to tackle them — except for the fact that in this instance the firearm in question was a shotgun. From a police spokesman . . .

The gunman walked into the Otto Miller Building just after 3 p.m. and shot three people, said Capt. Chris Fowler with Seattle police. The gunman then began reloading when a student building monitor pepper-sprayed the shooter.

“The shooter began to reload his shotgun and the student building monitor inside the hall confronted the shooter and was able to subdue the individual,” Fowler said. “Once on the ground, other students jumped on top of them and they were able to pin the shooter to the ground until police arrived.”

We still don’t have details on exactly what kind of shotgun was used, but in general the kind of gun control legislation proposed by Moms Demand Action and other Bloomberg-funded astroturf groups (magazine capacity limits, assault weapons bans, etc) would appear to have had exactly zero impact on this incident even if it was federal law.

Recommended For You

115 Responses to UPDATE: SPU Shooter Used a Shotgun

    • Because it doesn’t fit the narrative, you mean? In a couple days, the scattergun could morph into an AR-15. It’s happened before.

      • You’re absolutely correct. For decades, I’d never heard the term “assault shotgun”, but in the week following the Naval Yard shooting, that’s exactly how his regular ol’ shotgun was described at every turn. They so wanted it to be an AR, that I guess they just couldn’t resist jamming that square peg into a round hole when it turned out to be a shotgun.

        • I believe there actually is such a thing as an assault shotgun, consider the M97 Trench Gun. It’s very purpose was to be carried forward on the assault for use in clearing enemy trenches. I think the appellation ‘assault shotgun’ applies. If it does, then the M590 must also fit the bill.

          I once owned a Franchi SPAS 12. It’s appearance and design indicate it’s purpose, it was specifically intended for military and police users and I believe well fits into the category of ‘assault shotgun’.

          The antis may place political meanings on common descriptive words that load them in ways they were not intended, but I don’t think one could say that there has never been a shotgun intentionally designed for assault and generally employed in that role.

        • I don’t know that anybody here has argued that there’s never been such a thing as a shotgun designed for assault purposes. That’s…….kinda………sorta……….what weapons in general are designed to do. That’s why it’s so silly when the media uses a term like “assault weapon.” As opposed to what? Love weapon?

          The point was that the media jumped all over the air and web with the term “assault shotgun”, as though that’s some universally accepted, pre-existing, technical term, when really it’s just their overzealousness to elevate the mundane to the sinister. I do appreciate your concurrence, though, albeit in a roundabout, eventual kind of way.

    • Well, it will be one or the other. The Navy Yard shooting dropped off the radar pretty quick, once the initial reports that the shooter was using an AR proved to be wrong. And it looks to me like even Isla Vista is dropping fast in prominence, despite the media’s best efforts to misreport the story to more closely hew to the grabbers’ preferred narrative. But they are continuing that effort, classifying all the victims as firearms casualties and such.

    • It’s been less than 48 hours since the killing of 3 police officers and wounding of two others in Moncton, New Brunswick, and already that story has completely fallen off the big internet news pages.

  1. Again, the person/people who had the cajones to take this bastard down, unarmed, deserve a massive amount of respect and thanks.

    • This kid is absolutely a hero by his actions. I usually don’t throw that hero word around much, but as you said, serious cojones. Anyone want to speculate on if he was “allowed” to carry pepper spray or if he did it on his own volition?

  2. Who the hell needs a scattergun with more than one round?

    Besides Joe Biden’s wife, I mean…

    • Cheney’s “friend” was happy the shotgun didn’t get the job done in one shot to the face. Wait that was a hunting accident right, not mugging a donor.

    • +1 : D

      egg Zachary to the OP, if Bush was in office and Cheney had said that, it would be 24/7/365 to our LORD JESUS came back.

  3. Proof that an armed citizen can subdue killer. Citizens can responsibly make self-defense decisions. It’s impossible to say what might have been, but I’ll say what we’re all thinking. If there had been a CPL holder there they might have been able to engage the active shooter sooner.

    It’s odd to think that my wife used to work right across the street from SPU. It’s never been so close to home for us.

      • +1, it hardly matters what method the responder who put’s the BG down is using to carry his weapon.

        I wonder at how the antis can’t grasp the idea that many armed people are not only an effective deterrent but an absolute bar to mass shootings. If it’s clear that if you start shooting people you’ll almost immediately be felled in a hail of bullets from multiple directions then simply committing suicide, rather than murder/suicide is sure to be preferable if only because getting shot without immediately dying hurts and may lead to capture.

        I wonder if some of them really believe, despite the mountain of evidence to the contrary, that armed citizens, at least those who are not compulsively homicidal to begin with, don’t go around shooting people. It’s as if they think that despite the ethical, moral and legal injunctions against murder, the only thing stopping the average person from gunning down random strangers is lack of a gun. Such a position is demonstrably false and patently absurd and yet it not only persists, it’s often accepted as a legitimate argument.

        I believe that simply refuting the argument is insufficient. I think one should address the complete ridiculousness of the underlying assumption. Perhaps the way to phrase it is “Tell me about the last time you’d have shot someone had you had a gun.”

        I almost always have a gun, I’ve been drunk with a gun, I’ve been depressed and almost hopeless, with a gun. I’ve been broke and stressed out, with a gun. I’ve been so angry I couldn’t see straight, with a gun and this taught me something about me and others; I no longer say someone made me so mad that I wanted to kill them, because it’s not true, if I’d been literally mad enough to kill them I would have. However this isn’t a matter of never having been mad enough, it’s a matter of understanding that murder is virtually never justifiable, morally that is, at least in my code of conduct.

        The only thing that gets my gun out is belief: I draw when I believe someone is attempting to seriously harm or kill me or someone else. I can’t say fear, because that isn’t what unlimbers my gun, it’s the realization that someone is about to be maimed or killed if something isn’t done to stop it.

        If these would be gun banners have any other answer, it’s probably not safe to let them go about in a free society at all, but that doesn’t mean it’s not safe to let me go about in a free society with a gun.

      • @John In Ohio – I only say CPL holder because it’s a college campus downtown in a very liberal city and open carry is just not going to happen without people shitting themselves. And ideally, one wouldn’t need a CPL to carry concealed but that’s the world we live in. The last thing we would want is someone saving the day to be brought up on weapons charges.

        • I understand what you are saying but we can lay foundation for the future. As we write and speak today, we do tomorrow. Why build stumbling blocks for ourselves? If the founders had done that in their own writings and speeches, how confusing would it be to figure their intent today? IMHO, say what we mean and mean what we say.

          You wrote, “but I’ll say what we’re all thinking. If there had been a CPL holder there they might have been”. That’s not what I would be thinking so I fixed the statement to match my own thoughts.

    • “Active” being the operative word in today’s parlance. The shooter was engaged while reloading. A shooter that is reloading is not, by definition, “actively shooting”. Lot’s of testicular virility needed to engage him nevertheless.

      • Agreed. I don’t think most college students that I spend time around (being a 35y.o. undergrad) would have the cojones to do that.

        Fun story, there was a policy change being tossed around at my school that pepper spray would be banned in the dorms. Including pepper spray. Fortunately, saner heads prevailed and quashed that idea pretty quickly.

        • Kudos for spelling “cojones” correctly. The usually-employed “cajones” actually means “boxes”.

    • I felt the same way with the Clackamas Town Center shooting in 2012, my sister worked across the street and on any given day, could have been in the mall at that time.

  4. I’m afraid it will play EXACTLY into their hands. “See, a limited capacity weapon, a brave unarmed student was able to tackle him. No civilian needs any kind of high-capacity killing machine. It’s common sense. If he had had a high-powered military assault rifle with a lethal 30 clip magazine he could have massacred everyone.”

    Especially with a shoulder thingy that goes up. For the children.

    • I was thinking the same thing. Logically you can see where this could be used as an argument that limited magazine capacity should be required. I hate to say it, but this is the truth about guns. I don’t want to give the anti’s any ammo (so to speak) but I’m sure they’ve already thought of this angle. Of course we know the better solution is an armed populace that wouldn’t have to wait until reload time to return fire.

    • You unfortunately are probably more right than this article realizes. I predict they spend the next month beating the “if he had had an AR15 we would be looking at a campus full of dead people… since he had to reload, no one even needed a gun to defeat him!” This proves exactly what they want it to… again unfortunately

      • I don’t think it proves anything at all, other than a poorly trained shooter is poor at shooting and a poorly planned attack doesn’t go so well. One event doesn’t prove an ideology, or anything else, no matter how badly they wish it were so.

    • Pepperspray is armed.
      It’s not IDEALLY armed, but it is armed, and don’t let anyone tell you otherwise.

    • Well, like I tell the Fudds around here, a standard hunting-style pump shotgun can easily launch more projectiles than ANY so-called “assault weapon”, meaning their beloved scatterguns will be on the to-be-banned list too, eventually. So you better get on board and help us fight the good fight while it’s still winnable, folks.

      My teachers always said “Show your work”:

      Basic pump shotgun = 5 rounds (chamber and magazine tube, unplugged). Some will hold more.
      Basic 00Buckshot load = 9 pellets per shell, each is 1/3rd of an inch (bullets for non-gunnie folks).
      5 X 9 = minimum of 45 projectiles in the air in less than 5 seconds, before the first reload.

      Magnum shells = more pellets/projectiles. Might get 60 pellets of 00 Buckshot from the first load.

      Smaller buckshot = less penetration but more total projectiles per shell. 16 to 27 projectiles of .30″ to .24″ in standard shells, a total of 80 to 135 pellets in the air before the reload. Although lighter, even the smallest buckshot pellet is still larger in diameter than an eeeeevil AR-15 bullet.

      Short magnum shells of #4 buckshot could raise this total to 170 pellets in the air before reloading.

      • Yes, exactly, DJ9. Someone here mentioned that MDA had a post suggesting that a magazine ban works, but apparently that post was removed (at least, I didn’t see it when I looked at their Facebook page) and replaced with something that was more suggestive of taking ALL guns, shotguns included, from private hands.

        A skeet shooter may think that his Browning 725 Over/Under is not on the radar, but it may very well be. Groups like MDA will likely argue that it only takes “one bullet”, never mind the 30 round standard capacity magazine on a semi-automatic sporting rifle. This may not bode well for those who are into sporting clays or hunting. Look at New Jersey and its laws: A Daisy Red Ryder BB gun has to be registered the same as a center-fire rifle, because even BB guns are considered as firearms in that state!

  5. NO you’re wrong this will prove (in the brain addled world of the progressive libtard) that mag limits work.

    If the shooter had an evil assault rifle, or high capacity handgun, he would have been able to spray bullets nonstop for hours from the endless mag. Killing dozens of college children.

    Good that were no jumbo bullet clip magazines present. All praise to the mother earth. For the children.

    • The spree killer in this case made a grave tactical error: he/she failed to reload on the fly. Lest anyone forget, you can reload a shotgun before it is totally empty. In other words you can replace ammunition in the tube magazine as you shoot without ever running your magazine empty.

      That alone argues against the effectiveness of any capacity limitation.

      Oh, and remember that you can do the same thing with lever guns as well (reload as you shoot without ever running the magazine empty). A lever gun in .357 Magnum holds 10 rounds I believe in the tube magazine … and will launch bullets at upwards of 2100 fps and 1200 ft-lbs of energy at the muzzle with full power loads!

      • If empty you can very quickly throw one shell straight in the ejection port and close the bolt, then reload the tube at your leisure. Not being there it is not possible for me to say just how the reloading was being done.

      • True that, if he was truly reloading and empty gun then he failed to feed the puppy while he was working it. It’s part of the basic manual of arms for a tube fed shotgun. Training, not weapons, makes the shooter, for good or for bad. Horrible as it sounds, a well trained shooter with a pair of revolvers would be far more effective than the average mass shooter with an AR. Tactics and training = lethality, the available tools only suggest the tactics and training.

        • People don’t realize how lucky we’ve been. I know, it’s probably not a coincidence that mass shooters tend to be abject losers, but still, we’ve been lucky. Some of these killers take months if not years to plan – I shudder to think what even a moderately competent individual could do in that timeframe.

        • Given enough time, we will unfortunately see a cool, calm, competent operator carry out one. It might be something like the North Hollywood Shootout against unarmed citizens. Even then, the anti crowd will refuse to acknowledge that disarming everyday people going about their own lives is a monstrous infringement.

        • I don’t know about lucky. I think statistics prove that gun owners on the whole are not the homicidal maniacs ready for a mass killing at a moment’s notice. I would go out on a limb and say that spree killers are less than one in a million!

    • Probably not without reducing (or eliminating) the age restrictions.
      You have to be at least 21 to buy a handgun or get a CPL here. Most college students aren’t going to meet that.

      • Not necessarily true, my wife and I are in our 30s and we are still finishing up higher level degrees. Not everybody goes to college straight out of high school nor stops at just one degree.

        Most colleges have graduate programs and PhD program, which almost all of those students are going to be well over 21, except maybe child genius types.

        That doesn’t even take into account the veterans like myself, who did not step foot into a classroom until I was well over 21.

      • I was a non-traditional student and there were many others on the campuses where I attended. Of course, practically all around me in graduate school were 21 and over. I was the “old man” by that point though, lol. Also, there are often visitors and those who work on campuses who are over 21 years of age. Besides, it should be age of majority for keeping and bearing of arms anyway; 18 years of age and shall not be infringed.

  6. Do not some cities (maybe many) prohibit even the carry of pepper spray or a tazer without some form of permit? Better tool up with a steel pen and a rape whistle.

      • Behaviors for which students or student organizations are subject to disciplinary action include, but are not limited to the following:
        .
        .
        .
        13. Possession, use or display on University property of any firearms, weapons, fireworks, live ammunition, incendiary devices, or other items that are potentially hazardous to members of the campus community.

        I wonder if, in the age of “zero tolerance”,
        They will expel the life saver with the pepper spray that ended this….

    • Not here.
      You can openly carry anything you can own, with the exception of a few types of knives, in WA.

    • Yep. I remember being shocked about the law in New York over pepper spray! It makes me thankful for two California laws (for once) that guarantee the right to carry pepper spray/stun guns (though there some restrictions, like I believe someone under 18 needs written parental consent, or maybe that is just to buy it…)…in any case no stupid city laws to prevent that option…now if only the same were true of knives (we need preemption there, state law is better than many states actually) and carry laws for guns (there state law is terrible)…

  7. Actual report: shooter used a shotgun.
    MDA and MAIG report: shooter used a military grade police styled burst assault shotgun with a detachable ammunition high capacity clipazine.

    It doesn’t matter if a standard capacity magazine ban would have affected this shooting at all. If it will further their agenda, they will use this shooting to pass another feel good bill.

  8. It’s awesome that their solution to this is ninjas. It’s like a bunch of 8 year old boys are running the school boards.

  9. Come to think of it, I wonder if shooting four people with a shotgun will count as a “mass shooting” with the media? Since, if it doesn’t, it could be used to support their preferred agenda as others here have pointed out. We all know it would if an AR had been used.

    • According to the news here in Seattle, he actually only shot 3 people. The 4th was just traumatized by the incident and taken to the hospital.

    • One of the statistical analysis posts on here a few weeks back said that “mass shooting” means four or more victims. So this one will count.
      @Craig: They’ll count the fourth person as a shooting victim, because the trauma was from the event and it makes for a better anti-gun story.

  10. The person that ended the shooter’s spree was NOT unarmed.

    There are states where it’s illegal to carry pepper spray for the same paranoid reasons that the Moms don’t want us having pistols for.

    Pepper spray is an effective weapon for distracting an attacker, but it won’t take him out of the fight permanently. If there hadn’t been a mob of people there to subdue the shooter, this could have gone very badly for our pepper-sprayer.

    • I’ve used pepper spray on a few people. Some stopped when I threatened them with it, others the moment it touched them. Most persisted for a bit before surrendering to stop the spraying and enlist help to deal with the effects, one just turned and dashed away. Then there was this juggernaut who took an entire 95 gram can (that’s a large, duty sized can) of Fox in the 2.5 million Scoville range and just kept pacing around looking agitated. Now, I don’t think he could see where he was going, and he was obviously suffering horribly. A can that size will spray for well over 30 continuous seconds but this was delivered up close and in many short, well aimed blasts. His head was painted so orange that it looked like a basket ball and from the front his white tee shirt looked as if it were entirely orange. He eventually tried to get into his car and leave and had to be subdued physically. Sometimes the stuff works, sometimes it’s merely a distraction. It’s a good tool, but it’s also highly unreliable.

    • But the official Official Hall Monitor had it. Right next to his pool pass. I wonder if it was legal.

    • Everyone is much safer when women just lay down and enjoy their rapings. Pepper spray would just anger the rapist and people could be hurt.

  11. I wonder what their going to come up with regarding “plugs” for shotguns. I suppose before long we will all have to put a plug in our home defense shot gun, limiting it to three rounds total, as if we were going duck hunting.

    • No, they will want you to just turn them (shotguns) in… You don’t need those after all. Its for the greater good.

      • That’s right. No one needs to hunt any more. There is plenty of food in the grocery stores and we can always depend on farmers and the supply chain to restock the stores every 24 hours … except when we can’t.

  12. The more shootings that make headlines in which murders use non-“assault weapons”, the more the Antis will cry out that there needs to be an outright ban on gun ownership completely. Stop looking at these stories and drawing logical arguments form them. The Antis aren’t. They see “shooting! with an AR!” and think “OMG ARs are bad!” Then, “shooting with a Glock!” and think, “OMG Glocks are bad!” Then they see “OMG shooting! With A Shotgun!” and think, “Shotguns are bad too!” Every one of these stories is just writing the laundry list of the next gun they add to their want banned. Because obviously if murders had to break the law to get guns they would choose not to kill people right.

      • It’s a sad day.
        A sad day for those that died, for their families, for freedom, for shotgun owners. But most of all it’s a sad day that one cannot read a story about a tragedy and have all thoughts of sympathy and sorrow overwhelmed by thoughts of, “I wonder if this means the government will come after what I own next….”

        Dear America,
        Guns aren’t monsters. Gun owners aren’t monsters. Monsters are monsters. Please learn to tell the difference.
        – Concerned.

    • Their ban has always been a total ban of all guns. Only because that failed in the 70’s have they resorted to trying to ban one type of gun at a time.

      The best counter measure is to turn as many non-gun owners into gun owners as possible. The more guns we can get out there the harder it will be for them to ban them.

      • It’s the anti-gunner’s playbook. Divide and conquer. They’ll start with the “assault weapons”. Then other self-loading rifles. Then shotguns. Then pistols. Then repeating rifles. Then “sniper rifles” (really anything with a scope). And finally anything else. The Fudds will certainly endorse any bans in the first 2 or three categories since it has nothing to do with deer hunting and benchrest.

        The anti-gun groups have been talking to each other for decades. The pro-gun side has barely 20 years of communication, and even then relations between various factions have been strained (and often still are). Remember that the Australian anti-gun zealot Rebecca Peters ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebecca_Peters) is still a director of the International Action Network on Small Arms (UN body, link in previous article). She is in a prime position to “advise” both official and non-government groups on anti-gun methods.

    • Good. Let them come out and say they want every gun banned. At least it will be honest, and they won’t be able to hide behind the “I’m a gun owner too” facade.

      • Ahh, Chiraq. Rahm’s paradise on the lake.

        Oh, crap! Wait a minute! I’m going there next week. . .

    • Black and brown people don’t count. The anti-gun groups seize on the white only killings because of the apathy and disregard for minority communities in general. It’s a targeted racist policy on their part since minorities vote almost exclusively for gun-grabbing democrats. Why spend any effort winning over a segment of the population already on your side? With very tight gun controls you end up with demographics like this:

      New York City Crime and Enforcement Report 2013

      “Shooting victims are most frequently Black (73.9%) or Hispanic (21.5%). White victims account for an additional (2.8%) of all Shooting victims while Asian/Pacific Islanders victims account for (1.8%) of all Shooting Victims.

      The race/ethnicity of known Shooting suspects is most frequently Black (74.1%). Hispanic suspects accounted for an additional (21.4%) of all suspects. White suspects (3.4%) accounted for the remaining significant portion of suspects while Asian/Pacific Islander suspects accounted for (1.1%) of the known Shooting suspects.

      The Shooting arrest population is similarly distributed. Black arrestees (70.0%) and Hispanic arrestees (25.4%) account for the majority of Shooting arrest population. White arrestees (2.9%) and Asian/Pacific Islander (1.6%) account for the remaining portion of the Shooting arrest population.”

      These anti-gun groups clearly understand that a disarmament program will result in the entire country having shooting demographics like that of New York City. They’re the real racists with Bloomberg at the helm.

  13. The gun control lobby will once again try to leverage this tragedy for their own political purposes, all the while ignoring the root causes of violence. Not just “gun violence,” but all types of violence.

    My son is a student at Arapahoe High School, and was in class the day a fellow student walked into the school with shotgun (not AR) and Molotov cocktails. The shooter purchased his shotgun legally, paid the newly mandated fee for the background check and passed with flying colors.

    The killer broke no law. No law, that is, until he walked into the gun-free zone that is the high school, set the library ablaze, fatally shot one fellow student and when confronted by a Deputy Sheriff and a school employee, shot himself and committed suicide.

    My heart goes out to the affected families of both the victims and the shooter. It is m wish that no parent has to experience the pain of losing a child. We were lucky, our son was returned to us http://jamesviser.com/?p=949.

    But, powerful emotions do not cloud our minds to the reality of the situation. Like other tragedies, Arapahoe High School shooting proves that you can pass laws to cover 100 scenarios, but there will always be a 101st..

    If gun control worked, it would have at Arapahoe High School, given that the Democrat-controlled state legislature and Democrat governor John Hickenlooper passed every law Bloomberg’s MAIG wanted.

    Until we as a society address the root causes of violence – poisonous culture, poverty, addiction, crime and mental illness – we will continue to experience random acts of violence.

    It is time to wake up. It is time to address the root causes of violence. This obsession with gun control is unhealthy, misplaced and endangers our children.

  14. I am a student at a California university. My heart goes out to those who were harmed, and their families.

    I am rethinking my situation though. I always carry a can of bear spray in my backpack, even though it is very illegal to do so in CA. It makes more and more sense to switch that out for some more effective hardware though. In a situation like this, any cares about breaking the law would go right out the window.

    • Um, bear spray is illegal for use on humans under federal law.

      California state law explicitly safeguards your right to carry a stun gun and/or “a tear gas device” 2.5 oz or less. Get some mace that you can access quickly (they have nice ones from sabre that go on a key chain) or a stun gun. I saw plenty of both working security on campuses in California…both very kosher. Bear spray in a back pack is questionable even practically speaking.

  15. Update: apparently the shooter was a 26 year old who was not a student. So much for that ’emotional attachment’ to a place theory.

  16. Well, this is interesting:

    Police sources told Q13 FOX News that an “agitated,” white man believed to be in his 20s with a shotgun told two people on the campus to remain still. When one moved, the gunman shot that person. The second person sprayed Mace at the gunman, who then shot the second person in the face, police said.

    If this is true, it sounds exactly like a situation where armed intervention would have been extremely beneficial.

    http://www.q13fox.com/2014/06/05/breaking-police-search-seattle-pacific-university-after-reported-shooting/#ixzz33pDZ6ZMe

    • If that account is accurate, and in fairness, early accounts can be spotty on accuracy, then that actually blunts the gun grabbers’ position. Guy sprays shooter with Mace in the face (probably just pepper spray, not actual Mace brand Mace), shooter shoots sprayer with shot in face. That shows that spray weapons are not at all sufficiently effective. Had the sprayer returned fire with a firearm, not a can of Aquanet, this thing would have stopped right there with no need for further injury, death, or risk of either.

  17. I want to give credit to the student monitor who bravely took on the shooter. Most likely this was a work-study student, working for tuition or housing money; certainly not anything more than a quite modest salary. Taking on a gunman with nothing more than pepper-spray was an act of genuine bravery. This man saved some people’s lives.

  18. It will be interesting to find-out what the “official” version of this sad event is. Certainly, it demonstrates the danger to public health posed by “gun free zones”. We should all avoid those like the plague and refuse to patronize retailers, educational facilities and services that put us at such severe risk of fatal injury. It is becoming simply too dangerous to be tolerated by a civilized society with a Constitution that protects our natural right to defend ourselves from this epidemic of violent young white males misusing firearms and abusing the right to keep and bear arms. (What are you looking for? A “sarcasm off switch?)

  19. We are going to get to the point, and for some we are already there, where people will say to hell with your gun control and CC anyways. I know when I went to college all my friends and I could think about is the what if. Some might say it is an obsession, but when you are not properly armed for an armed conflict your options are more limited. Thoughts and prayers to those hurt and effected by this.

  20. I wonder if they will charge the student who pepper-sprayed the shooter? we just can’t have people carrying around such things, just think of all the evil they could do with such a thing.

      • Exactly- I wonder about the details- if I were only armed with pepper spray, or a knife with no longer than 1 and 1/2 inch blade- rules for what you can legally carry on UC campuses, for example,

        then I would wait for a reload, too.
        Not much chance charging straight into double aught buck.

  21. Yeah. Gun Laws. They forced the good guy to have nothing more effective than pepper spray to take on the bad guy with a gun.

  22. Moms Demand Action, Facebook page – well, this didn’t take long…

    “And again. This time, in Seattle. One killed, three wounded by a young white male openly carrying a shotgun into a college building. The good guy with pepper spray and nearby students subdued the shooter WHEN HE STOPPED TO RELOAD. It’s early yet, but 3 clear lessons can be learned: open carry is dangerous and stupid, “good guys” don’t need guns to stop a shooter, and limiting ammunition capacity saves lives, every time.”

    • open carry is dangerous and stupid

      So, she’s saying that the shooter should’ve concealed? Because he had a shotgun out in the open while he was shooting victims, somehow open carry is bad?!?! She’s (self-moderated comment)!

    • Looks like they took out the talk about magazine limits and the time it takes to reload. I just looked at their Facebook page, and it says this instead:

      “We shouldn’t have to worry about exposing our children to gunmen when we send them school or college – no parent in another developed country does.”

      It is looking to me like they want more than a magazine limit. This was a shotgun, the same type of firearm used for duck hunting, upland game, and deer in a shotgun zone in some states, either with buckshot or slugs.

      Take heed, people. Nobody is immune! Not even Fudds! If you are into sports like hunting, skeet shooting, silhouette, or any other firearm sport that utilizes a fine bolt-action rifle, shotgun, lever gun, or even a high-quality single-shot, then you darn well better be prepared to ALSO stand up for our Constitution.

      There are plenty of people who believe that NOBODY should have ANY gun. Not even an AIRGUN! Except for the military, police, and government officials. Keep Sending those letters to your congressmen, vote, and make your voices heard.

      • Interesting!
        “We shouldn’t have to worry about exposing our children to gunmen when we send them school or college – no parent in another developed country does.” quoted from MDA FB Page, by Thomas Vinyard

        What about parents of those 200 young women in Nigeria? Or is it that to Shannon Watts and Michael Bloomberg Nigerians and their children don’t count as “Parents and Children” the same as U.S. Parents and Children? Or maybe Parents and Children in the Inner Cities of the U.S. don’t count the same as other Parents and Children in the U.S.?

        Sending American Children to “Gun-Free School Zones” exposes them to gunmen and gets them killed! We have plenty of hard evidence for that…MDA, listen! More will be exposed to gunmen and more will be killed because you and you kind refuse to defend them! How many dead children do you need stacked in front of you before you come to the simple realization we can stop this by providing for our children effective deterrence and defense? Your position is utterly insane and a menace to public health.

        @Thomas Vinyard, I agree with your admonition to the Fudds and the uncommitted. You are right. If the anti’s get their way, we won’t even have rubber band or water guns left to us.

        To the Fudds and the uncommitted…It’s not about the children, it’s not about violence, it’s not about the mentally ill, it’s not about if you hunt or target shoot… it’s about the GUNS, stupid!

  23. Two comments- Fowler talking about 3 round shotgun homicide – nut sure if i could have even planned that.

    That spare donated P320 Should go to the kid that stopped this idiot. I don’t think anyone can beat his story.

  24. From the bloody-shirt waver’s FB: “The shooting comes less than two weeks after a shooting at UC Santa Barbara…”

    I’m sorry, but I must have completely missed the shooting at UC Santa Barbara. Anyone know about that?

    Journalism integrity much?

  25. Reality is just not cooperating with the gun controllers.

    – CA legal pistols
    – knives
    – cars
    – shotguns.

    Everything except what they are wanting to ban.

    Do you think that’s going to moderate their stand, though? Nah, neither did I.

  26. I doubt that shooter would have come on campus knowing that any student could have been CCWing in a backpack. Imagine if two or three had unloaded on him after first shot. How many lives and injuries would THAT common sense RKBA for self defense outside the home have saved?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *