tactical molle apron bbq
Courtesy Amazon: https://amzn.to/3zD2nhj
Previous Post
Next Post

It boggles the mind but, somehow, despite being in Fort Worth, Texas, an aggrieved party-goer managed to open fire on an apparently (not to mention shamefully) unarmed group of backyard party attendees. Well, “unarmed” may be a little strong, because the folks most definitely defended themselves . . .

…a man who opened fire at a backyard party in Fort Worth, killing one and injuring three, died after being chased by fellow party-goers who threw landscaping bricks at him.

That’s a pretty good summary by ABC News of the AP story. Any further details of this incident, which happened at sometime around 1:00 AM yesterday (July 26th) morning, aren’t yet available.

One thing I’m comfortable stating is that this should have been a defensive gun use. As amazing as it is to see people fight back, and as effective as this stoning likely was in reducing the total casualties from what otherwise would probably have been a much worse incident, landscaping bricks are a poor substitute for a firearm.

Aside from being less effective and far less immediate, bricks are also far crueler and less civilized. I had a vehemently anti-gun friend who wasn’t, however, anti-violence, explaining to me that he had no issue whatsoever defending his home even if it resulted in killing a home invader and, in fact, he kept a baseball bat near his bed for just such an emergency. Naturally I accused him of being a sicko psychopath, choosing all of the disgusting horror inherent in bludgeoning somebody with a pipe instead of stopping him cleanly and efficiently from a distance with a firearm like a gentleman.

A firearm is an elegant weapon for a more civilized age. God forbid any of us have to use one in self-defense, but it sure as hell beats stoning somebody to death with landscaping bricks. Gruesome.


Previous Post
Next Post


  1. They were projectilists! I wonder what the energy levels were for those multi-thousand grain bricks? 😉 Got the job done!

    • A new landscaping brick with a weight of 3 lbs has a PF of 2350.
      The “old” bricks with a weight of 5-6 lbs has a PF in excess of 4000.
      This is assuming a speed of 50mph.

      Honest to God when I was a kid I loved throwing bricks.
      There is an art to it, if you hit with end in the head people do not get up.
      I made the numbers up so know that. My parents thought I was mental.
      I keep bricks in my house, I have 5 old bricks from the original Chicago stadium.
      They are in my bedroom closet on a blanket.
      I never killed anyone when I was about 10 but people would lay there unconscious and bleeding.

      “Let him who is without sin cast the first brick.”

  2. “landscaping bricks are a poor substitute for a firearm.”

    The perp is dead. They seem to have done a sufficient job. A gun isn’t the only tool for defense — it’s just one of the most useful ones. If you are in a high security area that denies you access to guns, you had better know how to identify and use “environmental” weapons. You couldn’t get your gun past the checkpoint, but the bad guy figured out that all he had to do to get his in was shoot the security officer. Now what are you going to do?

  3. I have no issue with stoning when it is the only thing available.

    And using a bat, you swing until you bring the crime to a halt. No one is thinking about being civilized when trying to defend life.

    • Apparently the party folks were knowledgeable of Jeff Cooper’s advice:

      “If you find yourself under lethal attack don’t be kind. Be harsh. Be tough. Be ruthless.”

    • “And using a bat, you swing until you bring the crime to a halt.”

      It’s all in the follow-though…

  4. Alcohol and firearms don’t mix. This may explain why the crowd was unarmed. They didn’t select a designated defender.

  5. That “White guy grilling” stock photo is unlikely to be accurate. The Como neighborhood of Ft. Worth is a black neighborhood.

    • Ironically was thinking the same thing. Kind of amazed there was only one gun at that party. Sure there is more to the story as well.

  6. Outside of his anti-gun attitude, I’m inclined to agree with the “sicko psychopath”.

    Being shot by a gentleman is a death for a gentleman, and far too good for a scumbag who violates the sanctuary where my wife and kids live.

  7. Wait for it. Biden will soon call for a federal registry of bricks. Guidelines will be published on how to safely store your bricks. Laws will be passed to keep bricks out of the hands of juveniles. Forbidden categories of people prohibited from possessing bricks. We’ll need to address the ghost bricks! What a can of worms!

    • “Wait for it. Biden will soon call for a federal registry of bricks.” No problemo, bricks aren’t mentioned in the Constitution.

    • Don’t forget brick sound suppressors.

      They should re-name the BATF (actually its Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives) to BATFEFB (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and Friggin Bricks).

      Can I get a permit to carry a concealed brick?

      yeah, it should have been a DGU but there is something deeply satisfying and cathartic in beating the crap out of a bad guy.

      • Traveling thru the People’s Rep of MN this week. How many bricks can you carry in a car and how must they be “secured”?

  8. “…a man who opened fire at a backyard party in Fort Worth, killing one and injuring three, died after being chased by fellow party-goers who threw landscaping bricks at him.”

    Like the old Toyota commercial went – “You, asked for it, you got it!”…

  9. Whatever works. The important part is that a violent, self-entitled thug paid the price right then and there. Jeff Cooper warned us that criminals do not fear the police or courts. Therefore, they must be taught to fear their victims. If enough of them get taken out like this, the smarter ones will realize that, no matter which way they turn, their backs face the opposite direction. Some unlikely individual may come out of the woodwork to put a knife or a bullet into the criminal’s back or split his skull with the proverbial blunt object.

  10. “Three people were shot during the chase”

    hard core. sounds like considerably more than just a random shooting. probably a mexican gang thing.

    • Ammo is coming down.

      I scored some of that Federal ‘Punch’ .22lr (the nickel-plated lead bullet stuff) from Federal at MSRP 20 cents a round to try in my NAA-Mini and Beretta 21A Covert (My new Velo-dog setup when my ‘Pill Bottle’ can is released from NFA jail).

      My receiving FFL has a gun range on-site and allows ‘conjugal visits’ with items in jail… 😉

  11. I just wanted to say I have an extremely high capacity Bungalow that’s for sale if anyone wants it. Gotta pass the NICS check though.

  12. Baseball bat? Try a homemade mace on for size. I have one under the seat in my truck, for any occasion where a gunm just won’t do — because I’m a barbarian, not a psychopath.

    • “…for any occasion where a gunm just won’t do —…”

      Interesting how Marsupial seeps into TTAG ‘lingo’, isn’t it, Mr. Ing?

      (Nasty jagged yellow teeth and rat-like tail and all, we like the Possum here in TTAG…;) )

  13. Under the law of self-defense there is a pretty sharp line drawn between “deadly weapon” vs. “not a deadly weapon”. (I don’t make the rules; it’s the courts and legislatures that make the rules. Over the centuries, this is the way they have drawn the line.)

    If you assault, batter or kill someone with a deadly weapon it makes little difference which which weapon you chose. You used a deadly weapon. (The consequences are less severe if you use a non-lethal weapon).

    The foregoing being the case, I don’t see much of a basis for a law that permits a person to carry one type of deadly weapon but prohibits a different type of deadly weapon. A person who carries any deadly weapon has the capacity to inflict deadly force upon another.

    The only rationale I can think of is that one weapon (or weapon system including magazine capacity) is able to inflict more lethality – more victims – than another. We might (tentatively) say that we will accept the keeping of a greater-capacity weapon in the home while, on the other hand, permit only lower-capacity weapons in “sensitive places”. Let’s see where this takes us. . . .

    Suppose a green-grocery is a “sensitive place”. Consider a woman who fears confrontation from an ex; she carries a weapon. We might “allow” her to carry a knife; or a 2-shot derringer. Her capacity to inflict unjustified assault on others is thereby constrained. Admittedly, she has the capacity to kill/wound a couple of innocent victims before she is overpowered.

    We will, of course, do absolutely NOTHING to prevent her ex from stalking her in the grocery with a large-capacity pistol; with extra magazines. Nor will we do anything to prevent him from assembling his gang, each member of which carries a single knife. Nor will we likely pursue, prosecute, convict, sentence and punish the ex. Public policy is directed at the woman, not her violent assailant(s).

    The consequence of my supposed scenario is that we assure to society that the peaceable citizen is out-gunned (out-knifed, etc.) while the assailant is assured of his superior force. HE knows that his victim is law-abiding and will not violate the law to bring a gun to a knife-fight.

    I don’t see much of a solution to this sort of problem. Perhaps – when we are outside the bounds of “usual and customary” weapons we might consider some regulation concerning “sensitive places”.

    Our frightened woman has, of course, a 2A right to keep and bear Destructive Devices; provided, of course, that they are each registered and the $200 tax has been paid. Perhaps we could limit her bearing of such weapons to places where they might be used with safety; e.g., ranges. We might consider baring her from carrying a hand grenade into a green grocer. The question to pursue, here, is whether such an approach constitutes an “infringement” upon her right to bear arms?

    My real point here is to now flip the question to the opposite side of the coin. Does May-Issue (which prevents the woman from carrying a derringer, revolver or large-capacity semi-auto firearm into a green-grocer) “infringe” on her right to bear arms?

    Carry the argument one more step. Countless laws limit the carrying of cutlery (switch-blades) and clubs (black-jacks) in public. Do such laws – applied to the woman but NOT her EX – “infringe” on her right to bear arms?

    Shall we limit the woman to the “right” to bear a hat-pin? While, at the same time, doing nothing to constrain her ex? (When women began carrying hat-pins on public transportation in Philadelphia, some men objected to the practice because it gave the women the unfair advantage of deploying weapons in defense against groping.)

    If there is a power of government to draw a line on the weapons a woman may carry in “sensitive places”, then are we drawing the line in the right place as respect to distinguishing among types of arms?

    This isn’t to say that we are any more likely to detect and prevent either the woman or her ex from bearing a hand grenade into a green-grocery. Probably not. Yet, should s/he be spotted, the violation (of a hypothetical law baring D-Ds from sensitive places) would constitute a pretext for prosecution.

    The foregoing might constitute a line of reasoning to argue against the status-quo in the eight remaining May-Issue states; and, GFZs in general. We forbid the woman from carrying even a 2-shot derringer while permitting her ex to carry a baseball bat in the same venue. This makes no sense whatsoever.

    • Were I one of the brick throwers, I’d be more concerned that some over-zealous City Attorney would want to charge some of the people who “threw the last bricks”, particualrly if some witness would come forward and claim that the now-victim was incapacitated and the now-assaulters kept smashing him/her/it in the head with bricks. The threat was neutralized yet the now-assault continued to the death. Maybe not in TX, but I wouldn’t bet on the final outcome of this in, say, NYC, Baltimore, Boston, etc., etc.

      Just sayin’


    • “We forbid the woman from carrying even a 2-shot derringer while permitting her ex to carry a baseball bat in the same venue. This makes no sense whatsoever.”

      “The law is a ass.”
      – Mr. Brumble

    • “Public policy is directed at the woman, not her violent assailant(s).”

      Not necessarily; the policy is (theoretically, at least) directed at everyone, not only at the law-abiding woman. However, her law-abiding nature means that she is the only one that is limited by it, while her violent stalker continues to ignore both the law and the norms that bind civilized people.

      With laws restricting use of weapons, there’s a huge gulf between intent and effect.

      Your commentary about the reasoning for restrictions also illuminates a characteristic of the people who support restrictive weapon laws. All that time spent pondering the collateral damage an honest, law-abiding citizen might cause… They’re afraid of the wrong people.

      Or maybe they simply fail to recognize that intent and effect are not the same thing.

      I like to think it’d be useful to highlight the difference between intent and effect — as the burden of every gun control law ever proposed falls entirely on those who were already law-abiding, and bothers criminals not at all — but people seem impervious to it.

      But maybe the problem isn’t that the anti-gun crowd is afraid of the wrong people; maybe they’re not actually afraid of anyone. We’re (reasonably) afraid of the criminal who doesn’t obey the laws that restrict us; they’re afraid of a thing, a particular type of weapon, which means they can’t abide the thought that any people at all might have one.

      With that in mind, it makes sense that they’re happy to restrict that honest, vulnerable woman and put her at a disadvantage against the violent people who would harm her. Nobody should have the gun she wants to carry, because it’s intolerable that *anyone* should have one; they simply can’t admit the possibility that an “evil” object could produce a desirable outcome.

      Conclusion: The difference between intent and effect isn’t a bug, it’s a feature. In fact, there IS no difference between intent and effect in the minds of those who are anti-gun…which is why all our arguments about the futility of restrictive possession laws and “gun-free zones” fall on deaf ears.

    • “…I don’t see much of a basis for a law that permits a person to carry one type of deadly weapon but prohibits a different type of deadly weapon.”

      Legally, I agree, Mark.

      Presented in a courtroom by a DA looking at politics as a future, ‘Your Miles May Vary’, as the saying goes…

      • “Shall NOT be infringed” really is NOT that hard.”

        But it is futile as a political and/or legal argument. If the statement were “easy”, we wouldn’t be where we are vis-a-vis infringements.

        Besides, everyone has a favorite infringement that is merely “common sense”.

  14. “A firearm is an elegant weapon for a more civilized age. God forbid any of us have to use one in self-defense, but it sure as hell beats stoning somebody to death with landscaping bricks. Gruesome.”

    Who in their right mind would not use a defensive tools at hand (no pun intended) to get the job done.
    Elegant or not, civilized or not, the attack needs to be neutralized and defeated.
    You need to rethink your position!

  15. When will this nation finally come to its senses and ban these weapons of patio and walkway construction?

    Bricks designed for use in our nations’ patios, walkways and BBQ installations have no business being on our streets!


  16. I know there’s a shortage of ammunition, but landscaping bricks are a poor substitute. Pro tip: Next time, try concrete pavers. They’re more accurate and never over-penetrate.

    • Nothing says “Blunt-force injuries” quite like the results of a 12X12 paver on a miscreant’s noggin’…

      *Snicker* 😉

  17. Well it probably shouldn’t have been a DGU because they were there to party. You shouldn’t be carrying when doing so.
    What it should have been is a nope not going cause folks don’t know how to act especially when they party but even on a normal day.

    • That’s got to be the dumbest advice I have read today. You always carry. You are a sore excuse for a gun owner.

      • Maybe he means to indicate that people may have been drinking alcohol and if you are drinking you should not be driving or carrying a firearm.

        • You obviously have a problem with “stupid people, stupid places doing stupid things”. Stay away from the booze/pot/drugs and find different “friends”. Or stay home idiot.

        • Your right neiowa I do have a problem and obviously there is a problem when you read article after article like this one. FYI I don’t drink don’t use dope and always carry. I hate crowds.
          The only “idiot” is the ones carrying while impaired.

      • It’s bad advice from people like you and the author who think it’s ok to get drunk and high while armed that makes the rest of us avoid parties.

  18. Texas Party Shooter Killed with Assault Bricks. Film at 11:00

    Won’t be long now Dems will want to ban bricks.


  20. Definitely should’ve been a DGU.

    The target of the original shooting sustained a non-life-threatening wound. Two of the three injuries were to the people who fought back using only bricks, and one of those who fought back was killed in the process.

    Responding with a gun could have saved an innocent life.

  21. They used what they had at hand and not what they wished they had. They fought back and continued to do so even when others were shot and killed. Think about it, they were not deterred by being shot at and seeing others hit and dying. Those who died did not die on thier knees whining.

    How many times are we somewhere where we cannot have a firearm? How many times have you looked at your surroundings and took note of what could be weapon if needed? Airports after security you and I will be unarmed, but not defenseless if some whack job decides to shoot thru TSA and rush the secure area if you had noted what is available you can possibly fight back. Even if you fail, you at least die on your feet like a man ( or woman ) and not on your knees like a coward.

    It wasn’t a DGU, for whatever reason they were not armed. They fought back, that is what counts.

  22. Also, if the gunman was running away and they chased him down and killed him, they could be tried for murder.

      • Jury nullification is an extremely rare occurrence that is pretty much limited to cities like Baltimore, Chicago, or Los Angeles where juries are often comprised mostly by members of America’s most violent and dysfunctional demographic and those members opt to sidestep justice in order to let one of their own off the hook.

  23. I think the Brick users should be given 1% of the millions of dollars that would have been spent putting this scumbag on trial and incarcerating him for the rest of his worthless life. Even with the Death Penalty it would still have cost several Million dollars. As a token of the taxpayers thanks for saving their hard earned money.

    • Darkman,
      I like the way you think. If you ever run for office, you have at least one campaign contributor!

  24. I take it there’s an assumption that little or no alcohol was being consumed at this backyard party and none of the “should’ve been carrying a firearm” partygoers were intoxicated. So Jeremy, do you mean there should be a designated sober armed host or guest at all backyard parties just in case an armed attack occurs, or are you suggesting that folks should come armed, consume alcohol, then hope for the best if for some reason they encounter law enforcement and are carrying a firearm while consuming alcohol and/or intoxicated?

  25. Probably get charged with murder for chasing down and shooting someone running away. I guess killing someone with bricks is different tho..


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here