Previous Post
Next Post


Every time one of the anti-gun organizations talks about concealed carry, they try to make it seem like the whole exercise of packing a gun is pointless. “No one has ever stopped a mass shooting with a concealed handgun” they claim, completely ignoring the fact that you can’t quantify mass shootings that didn’t happen. Well, according to the Philadelphia Police Department, a properly licensed person who was carrying a concealed handgun stopped a man who had begun firing wildly in a downtown barber shop late Sunday afternoon. According to a report . . .

“The person who responded was a legal gun permit carrier,” said Philadelphia Police Captain Frank Llewellyn. “He responded and I guess he saved a lot of people in there.”

Police say there was a crowd of patrons inside the shop at the time of the shooting, including several children, but no one else was injured.

“There were numerous people in there,” Captain Llewellyn said. “So it could have been a lot worse.”

The gun control crowd scoffs at the idea that “the only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.” Then they promptly trot right out and hire themselves armed personal security guards and rely on armed police officers for protection. Its a hypocritical position that the majority of Americans see right through. The problem is their rhetoric — to the extent that anyone listens — costs people their lives every single day.

The Philly barbershop shoot is just one example of thousands every year in which lives were saved by a law abiding citizen using their legally owned firearm to stop a bad guy. In this case, the police believe that the quick and decisive action of an armed citizen saved lives and prevented what could have turned into a mass shooting. This is a prime example of exactly the kind of situation that Shannon Watts and Michael Bloomberg constantly claim never happen.

Guns save lives. It’s a concept that some people find difficult to wrap their heads around, but there it is. And in this case, even the police in a city that’s decidedly unfriendly to civilian-owned guns are singing the praises of an armed individual.

Previous Post
Next Post


    • I had the same thought.

      I was pleasantly surprised, however, when I watched the video interview of the Chief … his tone of voice and body language conveyed a sense of unexpected surprise and approval.

    • “…and I guess…”

      Captain Frank Llewellyn’s offhand remark just exposes and highlights the Philadelphia PD’s ingrained institutional bias, hostility and disgust toward all non-law enforcement citizens who chose to keep and bear arms, regardless of personal need or benefit to themselves and the community at large.

  1. Someone should create a website and list incidents like these and add a “guestimated” casualty figure (some percentage of persons at the location, percentage based on average police response time in the area/distance from police station).

  2. There is a fundamental debate fallacy when arguing that responsible armed people stopped a spree killer or reduced the number of casualties: it is impossible to prove a negative. In this case is impossible to prove something that didn’t happen.

    We have to find a better way to argue about the concept.

    • We have to find a better way to argue about the concept.

      Okay, then:

      1. Number of spree shootings in places not designated as “gun free”? (Zero)
      2. Comparative average number of victims per shooting with and without armed resistance

    • I don’t really see the point in engaging in that particular topic, anyway. Spree killers are extremely rare, especially compared to the garden-variety killers, muggers, and rapists who are stopped every day by armed citizens. Who cares if a concealed carrier never stops a spree killer? The police don’t seem to be stopping them very often, either.

      Personally, I’m far, far, far more concerned about being jumped in a dark parking lot than shot by a terrorist or some teenager whacked out on antidepressants.

      • True, but spree killings are what make huge headlines and are what antis exploit to ramrod regulations through. They’re also what John Q. Public thinks of when evaluating the reasonableness of those regulations.

        So you’re right, these are rare, but as a practical matter they’re still relevant. Therefore, we must acknowledge them and prepare counterarguments in support of our position.

  3. It would be great if this site would keep a running tally on situations just like this, and give its own category. Then again, it would quite a PITA to scroll back through all those articles…

  4. “Police say there was a crowd of patrons inside the shop at the time of the shooting, including several children, but no one else was injured.”

    Well, I’m glad that this CCW holder didn’t have an 80% miss percentage. My hat’s off to this man, that takes some cojones.

    • Amazing isn’t it? Absolutely no mention of the shots fired by the attacker. Let’s try to paint the licensed carrier as a hot head.

    • Philly dot com, and the Inquirer, is owned by a group of Democrat Party-oriented folks, led by, among others, George Norcross III, a South Jersey Dem stalwart (…understatement). The Inquirer/Philly dot com is consistently anti-gun and pro the large civil employee unions. It is no surprise that they downplay the bravery of a licensed gun carrier. They have an agenda, which is apparently to continue consolidating the power of the Democrat party in Philly and South Jersey. Newspapers have always been attractive investments for those who have both money and an interest in a particular political or social agenda. No surprises there.

  5. The problem gun-controller propaganda faces is that it is dependent on the American public being dumber that it actually is. Put another way, gun-control propaganda assumes that everyone else is as dumb about guns as are gun-control advocates. Austin is a perfect urban laboratory for examining the cultural gulf between this kind of stunning cosmopolite ignorance . . . and what the rest of us know.

    The increasing number of concealed handgun carriers means that there will be increasing instances where an armed citizen deters an armed killer in a public space. But while most concealed carriers are just armed private citizens, increasing numbers of concealed carriers will be people with very difference experiences. It’s not at all out of the ordinary to expect a spree-killer or terrorist to run into combat veterans, individuals who are real sheepdogs. As a an armed private citizen, I don’t think I’d want to go up against a spree-killer with an AK with an LCP unless it wasn’t possible to escape and evade. But someone a bit younger than me who had fought door-to-door in Fallujah would have a completely different skills-set. And the numbers of those kinds of people who are carrying concealed weapons are increasing.

  6. Who wants to go on a national bus tour reading the names of the people who didn’t die in incidents like this?
    I bet it’s a really long list. And it probably doesn’t include as many suspected murderers or terrorists as the Bloomberg list.

  7. Pennsylvania Rep. Saccone introduced H.B. 230 – for Constitutional Carry . Meanwhile Rep. Cruz introduced a bill to require all owned guns registered and owners fingerprinted , wait for it….. ONLY once a year !!! Make no mistake , Pa. is in the crosshairs. See details at

Comments are closed.