NPR is reporting that Sutherland Springs shooter Devin Kelley assaulted the First Baptist Church armed with two handguns and a Ruger AR-15. The man who engaged Mr. Kelley in a gunfight outside the church, Stephen Willeford, told Louder with Crowder that the killer was wearing a “Kevlar bullet-proof vest.” Mr. Willeford says he aimed at the killer’s sides to avoid hitting the vest. And succeeded. Kelley’s autopsy revealed . . .
that the mass murderer sustained three gunshot wounds: two from Mr. Willeford’s EOTech-enabled AR (in the killer’s leg and torso) and one by his own hand. Mr. Willeford’s 5.56 rounds weren’t fatal, but they helped put an end to Mr. Kelley’s rampage. Before he crashed his car, Mr. Kelley called his father to say he “wasn’t going to make it.”
We’re also learning more about the horrific events inside the church. washingtonpost.com:
David Brown, whose mother Farida survived the carnage, said she described Kelley taking aim at churchgoers on Sunday as they tried to flee and then walking “up and down the aisle” firing at people cowering or wounded on the ground in the church, about 35 miles south of Kelley’s home in New Braunfels.
The gunman fired four shots into the torso of the woman on Farida Brown’s left, her son said.
“With every shot, she was crying,” Brown said of the woman. “She was just staring at my mom while she tried to comfort her.” As he fired rounds into the woman, Brown held her hand, telling her she was heading to heaven.
Farida Brown had sustained shots to her legs, but expected she would be the next target of the gunman. “Then she thought that it was her turn,” David Brown told The Washington Post. “She just started praying.”
It’s unclear whether or not the fact that the killer carried standard capacity magazines will become a focal point for the civilian disarmament industrial complex, who’ve consistently called for a federal “high capacity” magazine ban (to accompany their desire to reinstate an “assault weapon” ban. The odds of the antis crusading against non-LEO sales of bullet-resistant vests seem low; the clothing is generally perceived as purely defensive.
It’s worth noting — as none of the mainstream media outlets have — that The James Guelff and Chris McCurley Body Armor Act of 2002 bans Americans convicted of a violent crime from purchasing, owning or possessing body armor.
In the aftermath of this mass murder, gun control advocates may call for legislation creating a mandatory federal background check for body armor sales, which are currently unregulated. Except for Connecticut, which requires all sales to be made in person.
Um, what?
While it is true to say that Mr. Willeford’s shots were not immediately fatal, it certainly appears that the wounds were, in fact, mortal. The killer merely decided to give himself a more immediately fatal injury.
I think there’s a difference between a ‘mortal’ wound and THE ‘fatal’ one. As far as the autopsy report would read.
^This.
Also, the level of tactical thought and precision shooting exhibited by Mr Willeford is highly impressive, especially considering this was his first gunfight.
Agree. Tactical thought especially if the shot to APOS leg was deliberate, the vest don’t cover his legs, let’s get him bleeding. I shall still wait to believe he wore body armor until I see the protection level reported. The bride says she saw (once) that he had a steel plate in front but not back, but never saw it again.
5.56 is a varmint round. That’s why I subscribe to the 7.62×39 ecosystem.
5.56 will kill your body, but 7.62×39? That kills your soul.
Or maybe I just hate having to lube and clean my guns all the god damned time.
That’s why I roll with .308. Kills your soul then shoves it up your own ass.
Ruger’s stock was already falling, I wonder if this will affect it as well.
This has got to all be fake news. There is no way someone could pull an EOTech from a safe and not find the battery dead.
(snicker)
Oh, snap!
He was actually aiming at the ground for a warning shot but since the zero had shifted by 40 MOA he ended up hitting him
Don’t know about Mr. Willeford, but I slip a small card between the battery terminals and the batteries in order to prevent this. When I want to use the site I just yank the card, snap the top closed and PRESTO I got power.
Also, should the batteries die anyway, the iron sights can be co-witnessed through the EOTech.
EOTech paid me to exchange my model 552’s for EXPS3-0’s. I never had trouble with the old ones, but much prefer the new one-battery transverse sites. I even use them on the front Weaver base of my bolt guns if rain or wet snow starts to fall. I purchased a good universal laser bore sighter, but it hasn’t found a problem with the EO’s. It has been a help with TLR-2’s and the RM06 when I re–install them, though.
No complaints.
Higher level soft body armor(Kevlar) is defeatable by most all rifle rounds, and even some pistol such as the Tokarev. So shooting said assailant in the side or “between the seems” was unnecessary.
Magazine capacity will likely be a staple talking point for the anti-rights side, as it always is. However, it should be no more so than usual. The main problem for them will be Mr. Willeford, his very involvement in this incident is a major impediment to the anti-right’s talking points. They may very well go full out in an attempt to no only discredit him, but completely destroy the man’s public image if given the chance. Their media enablers will no doubt lead the effort.
At a press conference yesterday, one of the LE spokesmen said that the killer was wearing one plate.
Perhaps, but there is so much conjecture regarding specifics that many details are still quite tentative.
If the attacker appeared to be wearing body armor, attempting to shoot around the body armor was a reasonable response in the heat of the moment, rather than trying to assess what type of body armor was in use.
This is why I run failure drills every time I go to the range.
Two to the chest.
Two to the pelvic girdle.
One to the head.
Interesting, a modified Mozambique drill? Effectiveness would no doubt be dependent upon the speed and precision of the marksman. No doubt, if executed correctly though, would certainly be lethal under all but the most extraordinary circumstances.
Nobody wears body armor over their waist capable of stopping rifle rounds. If nothing else, it puts the asshole on the deck in a phenomenal amount of pain from a shattered pelvis. Even if you manage to not hit any of the vital arteries that would cause somebody to bleed out in a couple of minutes, it is almost guaranteed to take them out of the fight.
This one does not necessarily disagree with Guy’s assessment. However, if indeed said attacker was only wearing Kevlar body armor, then preemptive measures that might be taken for other types of ballistic protection would still(if only in hindsight) be unnecessary.
I have no doubt that is true, but I, for one, have no clue how to distinguish between Kevlar only, plate holder, or a load vest with zero protection. Shoot mofo in leg after one to the chest, if I could aim at a seam I could aim between the eyes.
“I have no doubt that is true, but I, for one, have no clue how to distinguish between Kevlar only, plate holder, or a load vest with zero protection.”
Admittedly, neither does Esoteric Inanity, especially under such conditions as a mass killer firing at one’s self. This one’s intention is not to be a keyboard critic of Mr. Willeford’s actions, but rather to analyze all aspects of the scenario.
“Shoot mofo in leg after one to the chest, if I could aim at a seam I could aim between the eyes.”
Along with pwrserge’s drill, this would seem to be yet another viable alternative.
Yes, if one were capable of intentionally targeting seams while under such anxiety, then accurate shots to other vital areas would be child’s play. Esoteric Inanity would be lucky to score hits outside of center mass considering such conditions being imposed.
No doubt they’ve been trying, but it’s already day 3. If Willeford had skeletons that could be used to discredit him, they woukd already have come out. No way the media would let the good guy with a gun narrative set in without challenge.
No doubt this is true. However, from here on out Mr. Willeford will be haunted, not only by the specter of this horrific event, but by the ever looming hopes of those malicious individuals that will be eagerly awaiting him to falter. Anything or barely nothing at all may prove to be enough to crucify him in the public eye.
In the mean time, there will be countless speculation by the media pundits and anti-rights crowd. They will spin fantastic notions telling how he either didn’t make a difference, or endangered more innocents by engaging the demented bastard.
Such things are truly a shame, as Mr. Willeford appears to be a genuinely kind individual with no malice to him. Benevolent men like him were never truly meant to be killers. The events that transpired when he confronted that contemptible piece of shit, will doubtlessly scar Mr. Willeford for life.
The narrative I’ve seen forming has indeed become “he couldn’t save anyone” and – brace yourself for this – criticizing the good guy because his shooting was not immediately fatal to the bad guy. Truly warped.
Re Magazine capacity
The hero unfortunately showed how good guys need many loaded, 30-round mags stashed with their rifle.
Doubtless good guy was picking his shots as per Rule 4, but if he had a full mag or two he might have emptied one in the guy sooner.
/bs speculation….
Indeed, several loaded mags would have proven to be a boon to Mr. Willeford. This would likely have allowed him to engage much more quickly and with increased efficacy. It brings the notion to mind as to why he didn’t have a loaded magazine on hand. Perhaps he was a strong adherent to storing magazines with the firearms separate from ammunition.
However, further speculation/criticism of this seems inappropriate. No doubt there are many sleepless nights in store for Mr. Willeford. In the early hours of the morning, he will likely endlessly question such things. All the while recalling the gunshots he heard while frantically struggling to prepare his counteroffensive.
One reason Mr. Willeford didn’t have a loaded mag may be (and I emphasize “may”) that many believe that keeping a magazine loaded will weaken the spring over time.
It won’t. What weakens springs is repeated flexing, as in loading and unloading a mag. Keeping one (or more) loaded won’t make a difference to the spring(s) involved.
His interview is on NRA/TV. Mr. Willieford said he was down to 2 rounds, 1 chambered and 1 in mag. What I would like to know, was it a 10 round mag or 30 ? If it was a 10, then that would support the argument of being out “ammoed” by the criminal.
Yes and that background check would have failed too. Let’s waste money making more laws that fail because of incompetent people on the job.
Yeah, Buy your logic, lets eliminate all laws since they don’t work.
So Obama made it harder for the mentally ill to buy guns & Trump reversed it in February. One of the first Obama reversals Trump did. And Trump has given the ok to gut money for mental health services. How many mass shootings will be on russian puppet’s watch?
…because when they put that part about ‘due process’ into the Constitution, they obviously didn’t mean for that to be applied to the ‘mentally ill’. Why would they deserve due process?
BTW, it was the Clintons who were taking millions of dollars from the Kremlin. Just so you know. Something about giving away our uranium reserves…
The ACLU and 23 other mental health organizations lobbied even more vigorously than the NRA to get rid of obamas unconstitutional attack on non dangerous mentally ill people…you guys never mention those groups.
Just because someone allows his relatives caring for him to get his SS check, doesn’t mean he was mentally ill. If a doctor says he is mentally ill, then limit his firearms rights(by our laws). This is just declaring that a whole group of people are mentally ill without any doctor or court afirming it.
Yeah, Buy your logic, lets eliminate all laws since they don’t work.
Me thinks you have it backwards. Laws punish, they do not prevent.
“Yeah, Buy your logic, lets eliminate all laws since they don’t work.”
That’s *exactly* the response people like you have for drug laws, even though drugs kill tens of thousands annually.
*snicker* 😉
Drugs do not kill. Guns do not kill.
People kill, most often through bad choices.
Damn, doofus, I was hoping you were attending church …
“How many mass shootings will be on russian puppet’s watch?”
Theoretically none, since Hillary and Podesta didn’t reach office.
*by
“So Obama made it harder for the mentally ill to buy guns & Trump reversed it in February. One of the first Obama reversals Trump did. ”
Obama made it easier for a single government regulatory agency to deny constitutional rights to people based on their ability to manage their own finances, a move that is transparently unconstitutional. Trump struck this down, just like it should be.
Laws against rape and murder do not inconvenience me, because I do not rape and murder.
Laws that put unreasonable restrictions on firearms, with zero evidence of effectiveness, are abhorrent.
Just a liberal spewing exceptions to the constitution. How about when it’s your turn to be singled out because, God forbid you lose the use of your legs, and you NEED a family member to take you to pay your bills, instead of, well them doing it for you. What will you say then? ” well this isn’t fair, I’m not mentally unstable ” It’s easier for me to have my daughter/son do it for me. GOV. says, too bad dude your prohibited from exercising your right. Meanwhile, thug drug addicts find out your unarmed by government edict.
Perhaps they should pass a law requiring the armed services to report dishonorable discharges.
There was such a law proposed in 2013. The DNC filibustered it.
Actually, I just read that such a law exists. But it’s one of those fed eral bureaucracy laws where the bureaucracy is required by law to do something but if they don’t nobody gets punished in any way whatsoever. Kind of like a tree falling in the woods when nobody’s around.
Anyway, I was mostly suggesting that something like that could be forwarded to the redundancy department of redundancy.
There was no DD in this case, and a DD equates to a felony, I would assume it either is being reported or soon will be.
There was a BCD for domestic violence which would still have flagged him in NICS if the Chair Force bothered to keep up with their federally mandated paperwork.
We need to face reality.
We live in a relatively safe society. But not completely safe. And no amount of cops or laws or even guns and ammo is going to make you 100% so…
But that means that each person is responsible for ensuring that their own safety and of those around them are as secure as they can reasonably be.
I still cannot believe that nobody in the church itself, in Texas no less, was armed with a handgun.
Quite possibly the most lucid observation in sometime.
Sadly many people are content in their obliviousness to the dangers around them.
What good would a handgun on your hip have done when the shooter is unseen, outside, and firing through the walls into the building?
Now, maybe some return fire could have been possible once he entered the church. At the outset of the attack, though, some people are always going to be hit no matter how alert they are.
After all, even high profile dignitaries, besieged by daily death threats and surrounded by highly trained bodyguards, still get hit sometimes.
No guarantee either way. But as soon as this piece of human debris walked in and started to execute people in cold blood, a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. A handgun, or even a modicum of resistance, would probably be enough to scare off this phd, or allow others to make their escape.
Individuals taking responsibility for themselves and those around them despite the uncertainty of life is the path towards civilization.
Individuals avoiding responsibility for themselves and those around them is the path towards entropy and decay.
THE PROBLEM WITH THE 2nd AMENDMENT is that EVERYONE is a “responsible gun owner” right up until the moment they aren’t… And ANYONE with a gun is a potential killer and ANYONE with a high-capacity weapon is a potential mass-killer… IF you’ve bought a handgun or assault rifle you’ve already said “under some circumstance, I’m willing to kill someone”… all that’s left to be determined is what that circumstance will be… danger… anger … despair… madness?
The 400 million (or so) firearms in the hands of 100 million, law-abiding Americans disprove your assertions, daily. If what you said were true, there would be no one left alive.
This attacker was never a responsible gun owner. The warning signs were obvious and prevalent. He was, for multiple reasons, a prohibited person. He wasn’t just waiting to come unhinged. He was unhinged out of the box.
To conflate him with the 100 million, law-abiding Americans who do not cause harm is asinine.
THE PROBLEM WITH THE 2nd AMENDMENT is that EVERYONE is a “responsible gun owner” right up until the moment they aren’t
Your statement implies the Bill of Rights grants the People something. It does not. Rights are universal and have always existed. The BoR simply is a reminder to government to keep their hands off. What you infer is that because a very few people make bad choices all of the remaining 99.999999999999999999% of the people should suffer a reduction in rights.
FreedomLovingAmerican…
A CHARACTERISTIC of a FREE SOCIETY is that EVERYONE is a “responsible citizen” right up until the moment they aren’t… And ANYONE with hands/feet is a potential killer and ANYONE with poison, a truck, chain + matches + gasoline, or even just their voice (to scream “fire” in a crowded venue which induces a panic stampede) is a potential mass-killer.
Trying to prevent a determined mass-killer from acquiring the means to kill masses of people is a losing game of “whack-a-mole”.
Start thinking about how to:
(1) Isolate mass-killers from society before they maim/kill en masse.
(2) Have the ability to STOP mass-killers at the onset of an attack.
I believe you meant to state: “The problem with FREEDOM is everyone is innocent until PROVEN guilty.”
Statist hate real freedoms.
“Logic dictates: if gun owners were as violent as anti-gunners say they are, then there would be no anti-gunners.”- Mr. Spock
“THE PROBLEM WITH THE 2nd AMENDMENT is that EVERYONE is a “responsible gun owner” right up until the moment they aren’t . . .”
This is called “life in a free society”. Progressives like you like to imagine a utopian society filled with rule-minding, well-behaved citizens who always reflect YOUR values. No thanks. Our founders taught us that freedom doesn’t come without risk, so I’ll keep my guns.
No….everyone is not a responsible gun owner until the moment they aren’t…….actual research shows that murderers…90% of them, have long histories of crime and violence and likely at least one felony, often more, convictions before the murder. This history of crime and violence goes back to their teen years…..and this shooter in Texas fits that bill exactly……..so you are wrong…again. The 9,616 people murdered in 2015…70-80% of the victims are other criminals, not law abiding people……you have that fact too……
Someone needs to get this guy’s address and get him on the NAGR mailing list.
You forgot defense of ones self or family. Or perhaps someone on the street they see getting attacked.
As someone who has had a defensive gun use, and no i did not shoot him…. the mere presence of a .357 magnum changed his mind about trying to attack my girlfriend in our apartment, i will disagree with you on that statement to the end of the earth.
As i am sure anyone who has had a dgu.
You are welcome to your opinions, as i am entitled to mine. We can agree or not, but in this instance you are dead wrong.
I honestly hope that you are never put in one of those situations. I wouldnt wish that on anyone. I had nightmares for a long time after that about what wouldve happened if i wasnt home that night.
The same could be said for anyone with what the FBI labels “personal weapons”, meaning arms, legs, and a head. Any of those are capable of use in killing someone. In fact, far more people are killed with personal weapons annually than are so with long guns, which includes shotguns, hunting rifles, and the infamous scary black AR-15 rifle. Where is your thinly veiled animus for the armed, legged, and headed would-be killers among us?
The same could be said of all men, too, as being responsible and respectful of women, right up until they become a rapist. So what restrictions would you levy on penises and the men who wield them? Background checks? Licenses? Or maybe just limits on high capacity penises?
Although, that gets into racist territory real fast. Huh, kind like how the original gun bans targeted blacks, Hispanics, and Chinese? Why does the liberal obsession with infringing freedom always fall first, fast, and most unfairly on minorities?
IF you’ve bought a handgun or assault rifle you’ve already said “under some circumstance, I’m willing to kill someone”…
You are damn right under some circumstances I will kill someone, ie, if they are a threat to me or my loved ones. A person who will not kill under such duress is, in my opinion, not a real human being and isn’t worth a tin sh!t.
Garrison Hall says: “Progressives like you like to imagine a utopian society filled with rule-minding, well-behaved citizens who always reflect YOUR values.”
I disagree. What progressives/liberals really want is a country where everyone is watched to ensure they do nothing wrong.
The problem with that is this: who watches the watchers?
We see this problem everyday; those who are tasked with watching often use that power for the wrong purposes. They look up celebrities to see what dirt they can dig up. They watch hours of surveillance footage to find something they can post to Facebook. And if, perchance, that can’t find something, they make it up, saying they are in a position to know because they are a watcher (if you don’t believe this, just think of the accusations that Bush II was a cocaine addict, or that he was AWOL from his military duties).
Those who dream of Utopia are welcome to their dreams. The problem comes when they attempt to establish Utopia here; it never works in real life.
You don’t know that no one had a gun or that they didn’t try to fight back. Maybe they didn’t have clean shot. maybe they were the first person shot. “Having” a gun isn’t a talisman. Maybe their first instinct was to throw their bodies on their kids. Even the best trained defender still has to deal with environmental factors. I don’t think you can judge people in that situation.
I saw one reference to this church being a “check your gun at the door” place.
No verification that I have seen.
No guns allowed is a no go zone!
Another case where the attacker could calmly walk around and do whatever he wanted.
I’m not even going down the lane of one of the congregation carrying a gun. Nobody fought. They didn’t even bombard him with bibles.
They vastly outnumbered him, yet he got to shoot them like fish in a barrel.
There’s this thing “fight or flight” instinct. Apparently the “fight” part is completely gone. It’s now just the “flight, cower and pray” instinct, which goes against the most basic survival instinct and will do only one thing: get you killed.
My take on the no one fighting back is this is a very small rural church, the number I heard was ~50 folks. Likely one of those old churches that is made up of the very old and very young, not many of fighting age…
“I’m not even going down the lane of one of the congregation carrying a gun. Nobody fought. They didn’t even bombard him with bibles.
They vastly outnumbered him, yet he got to shoot them like fish in a barrel.”
*This*.
There can be only *one* response that *must* be taught in a mass-shoot situation –
Rush the fucking dirtbag shooter. Some will die, but that’s better than everyone being killed.
In the Pulse nightclub, he herded them into the bathroom and slaughtered them.
TEACH the best response is to rush the shooter, if in close range.
What is needed is the guts to be the first one with a national platform to lay it out…
People always cheap out on the side plates.
Or we just realize that the added bulk of side plates is generally not worth the weight. I run either a slim front and back plate carrier or a full wrap lvl IIIA vest with front and back plates. Side plates are prohibitively bulky and heavy if you don’t expect to come under heavy fire.
The only place I’ve ever been shot is in the side plate. So…I use side plates.
One thing that is being left out of the discussion is that he could have committed this crime in Australia, Canada, the UK, most of Europe, etc.- simply because of the failure of reporting. Without the Air Force reporting to the government (of one of those countries) his status and crime, he would get approved for a firearm by lying on the forms. He could have selected whatever he wanted (anything stripper clip fed comes to mind). There would have been far less chance of an armed citizen responding.
Just like in America, the average gun owner in those countries is a peaceable person not looking for trouble. It’s just that in America, the average gun owner has a greater ability to protect themselves from non-peaceable people (armed or otherwise).
What people don’t understand is that by banning guns like in many countries where we don’t hear of a mass shooting every months, it minimizes the risk of shootings. The argument that if a criminal wants a gun he will get it. Sure, but it might be more difficult. The point is banning guns is about minimizing accidental shooting, stupid shooting for no reason and mass shooting. But a lot of people in the US are not open minded, so attached to their second amendment right, and see what is done in other countries (Australia, France, Switzerland…) to stop the killings.
Ask yourself the question “where do you hear about mass shootings as frequently as they are in the US?”
Gun crime is going up in Australia…to the point Melbourne is now nicknamed the City of the Gun…..and in France, terrorists on government terrorist watch list got fully automatic military rifles…which are completely banned in France with no gun shows, and no gun stores…and murdered 142 people in terrorist attacks…and French criminals get fully automatic rifles easily, they are a status symbol there for their criminal class.
Britain…banned and confiscated guns, and is an island…..their gun crime went up 89% after they banned guns and London gun crime went up 42% just last year……so no, taking guns away from law abiding people does not reduce the gun crime rate. Locking up gun criminals reduces the gun crime rate…that is our problem..criminal control, not gun control.
Why does AbsurdlyLongNamedCommenterWithNoCompassionForTheInnocent want criminals to make bombs and commandeer tanks to kill innocent civilians?
Where do we hear about mass shootings as frequently as the US? Here’s just some countries in Europe (never mind the rest of the world).
France had more casualties from mass public shootings in 2015 than the US suffered during Obama’s entire presidency. And we’ve got five times the population! The per capita rate of casualties in France is thus 8.19 per million and for the US it is 1.65 — France’s per capita rate of casualties is thus 4.97 times higher than the rate in the US.
Want to know what countries have a higher death rate from mass public shootings than the US? Data from 2009 – 2015: Norway, France, Switzerland, Finland, Belgium, Czech Republic, Serbia, Macedonia, Albania, and Slovakia.
Want to know what countries have a higher frequency of mass public shootings than the US? Data from 2009 – 2015: Norway, France, Switzerland, Finland, Belgium, Austria, Czech Republic, Serbia, Macedonia, Albania, and Slovakia.
And we’ve got over 400 million guns!
Hey Danny, would you mind sharing your sources for those numbers? Not that I’m doubting them or you, I just know that a couple of the folks I debate on the issue will hammer me for sources if I use this. Which I surely will, because it is important to point this out to the hoplophobes.
Thanks!
You can look at it from various angles. Yes, in the death toll per capita Czech Republic may be even worse than the US. Or Slovakia may be worse. But both of these countries had ONE mass shooting in the timeframe of the statistics, whereas USA had more.
And now imagine we would shift the statistics 2 years (2009-2015 -> 2011-2017) so that current events are filled in the stats. Slovakia would fall out from the stats completely having zero casualties, and USA will get Las Vegas and this recent tragedy… The stats would quite shift.
It’s not like I am anti-gun. Just the stats can be very deceptive sometimes. You know it, there are lies, damn lies and statistics. 🙂
All of what you just posted is irrelevant to the main point- the main point being that he could have acquired a firearm in any of the countries I noted simply by lying on the forms, as the Air Force did not report his crimes properly. From Wikipedia:
” The Air Force failed to properly record the conviction in the FBI National Crime Information Center database which is used by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System to flag potential prohibited possessors when they attempt to purchase a firearm.”
So he could have acquired a firearm using proper legal channels in those nations and still committed his crimes.
Here you go.
https://www.thejacknews.com/law/gun-rights/the-united-states-does-not-have-more-mass-shootings-than-europe/
“Ask yourself the question “where do you hear about mass shootings as frequently as they are in the US?””
That would be immediately to our south, about a 3 hour drive from me. Kidnap capital of the world, night club partiers gunned down and blown up with grenades, entire towns owned by criminal gangs, murders and “disappearances” on a daily basis, many in public. Extremely strict gun control laws.
Why does everyone look across giant oceans for nation’s to compare the US to, instead of our immediate neighbor? Oh, right, the “narrative.”
What you don’t seem to understand is that no one on this website really cares what your opinion is. You don’t want a gun, fine, don’t have one. Just don’t think you’re going to disarm the rest of us.
“The argument that if a criminal wants a gun he will get it. Sure, but it might be more difficult. ”
You focus on criminals here.
So why would laws against legally qualified gun owners, have anything to do with criminals obeying the law (and not shoot people)? Even if every gun ever made was to suddenly be removed from the planet, many other manners of weaponry can enable those intent on harming others. Vehicles, Fire, sabotage, etc…
Face the fact. Some people choose to be bad and are not influence by simply owning a weapon.
Norway, France, India, Great Britain, Australia, the list goes on.
France had more people die in mass shootings in 2015 than the US while having less than 1/4 the population. Your argument is invalid.
France you un-informed fool. More mass shooting deaths in 2015 than in the US during the entire Obama era. No guns in france…for good guys.
Oh…and those AK47s used in France came through Fast And Furious.
https://crimeresearch.org/2017/02/france-suffered-more-casualties-murders-and-injuries-from-mass-public-shootings-in-2015-than-the-us-has-suffered-during-obamas-entire-presidency-508-to-424-2/
They want AR-15 civilian rifles because they say the can kill a lot of people…..the Virginia Tech shooter used two pistols…and mrudered 32 people….the Luby’s Cafe shooter used two pistols, and murdered 22 people….these guys target unarmed people…and choose their target for maximum killing….after the gun grabbers get the AR-15 civilian rifle….and all other semi auto rifles…they will use the exact same arguments to go after semi auto pistols….and then revolvers, and then pump action shot guns…..
I think the above article simply proves what I have been saying all along and that is that even though the hero had a rifle he only got lucky by being able to even wound the nut case because he had on a bullet proof vest and if the hero had been in church that day armed with a handgun he would have had no chance at all of stopping the carnage.
Lets face cold hard facts the nut cases have the advantage of the element of surprise, planning, and a superior weapon that is a rifle as opposed to you sitting in church naked without a vest and armed only with an anemic pop gun tucked in your belt.
There are two goats and a car behind three doors………………well cisco(isn’t Cisco some type of alcoholic beverage?) kid gets the gist. Does he stick with the initial choice, or go for a different door?
I must ask, why does Esoteric Insanity even *bother* to engage a worthless little POS like ‘cisco’?
Expending effort to scrape dog shit off the bottom of Esoteric Insanity’s shoe is effort better spent, in Geoff PR’s humble opinion… 😉
Ah yes, very good. Geoff PR is fluent in Esoteric Inanity’s preferred method of articulation. It is both flattering and humbling.
As to why Esoteric Inanity seeks to interact with cisco kid, well there is likely not a truly rational reason. However, it can be said that this one has always had an affinity for the pariahs and dregs of society. There is an inherent curiosity as to whether or not individuals like cisco kid act in such a way intentionally, or if said behavior is indeed genuine to their character. (Entertainment value is a secondary motive.)
In an attempt to illuminate, Esoteric Inanity probes with what may seem to be cryptic nonsense(admittedly, sometimes it truly is e.g. Like rocking horses in a field full of brains). After which, reactions are gauged.
What does each reaction mean? It’s not always clear, but makes for an interesting conversation(sometimes, but at others, it can be quite banal).
As for cisco, it is this one’s opinion, based on observation(writing style/word usage) and limited interaction, that he uses at least one other alias here. This in order to portray more conservative(in the sense of being status quo) positions. Potentially, cisco may yet have another to continue his usual antics when he becomes monotonous and can’t garner a reaction. This is all merely speculation though.
Unfortunately, cisco kid hasn’t been very accommodating of late. It seems that he has developed a degree of antipathy towards Esoteric Inanity. This likely stems from a disagreement in regards to the Confederate statue debacle.
As to the dog shit, if Esoteric Inanity’s shoe were dirty, then he probably would prioritize cleaning it over conversing with cisco kid. No offense intended to him necessarily, this one just likes clean shoes.
” he only got lucky”
It’s not luck. It was years of training, the right attitude, and the right equipment. How this lesson has evaded you is beyond me.
No….these guys do not experience getting shot at….and wether you are wearing body armor or not, getting shot at shakes you up…..and if they had hit him in the body armor, if he actually had it, isn’t a love tap, it hits like a hammer and beats up the body underneath……that is why it is so important to return fire on mass shooters, they are expecting a gun free kill zone…and when the rounds are aimed at them, they aren’t prepared for that….it is a whole different world, even if you are murdering innocent people.
Failure drills are a thing commie. No amount of body armor is going to keep you upright when I put two in your chest, two in your pelvis, and one in your head.
As Serge points out, a failure to stop drill has real world implications. If center mass isn’t getting it done, putting a few rounds in the pelvis changes the terms of the engagement – they can no longer stand, and have multiple hits is a very vascular area, making it easier to end the fight with a properly placed shot to the head. If my attacker can still return fire accurately after all that, I clearly lack the sorcery required to win that fight. Also- to those using the term “bulletproof” – its improbable that such a thing exists bullet – it’s bullet resistant. In similar fashion, the only thing that’s waterproof is a ducks ass – everything else is water resistant. There are rifle rounds that can sail through the best plates- there’s always a bigger, faster bullet.
Nothing takes the fight out of an armored attacker like getting shot in the dick.
Yet another reason why the ban on “armor piercing” ammo is unconstitutional. I want my black tip damnit.
Yeah well, unless I’m popped with the first round, I’m sure as hell not sitting and hiding waiting to be executed. Let’s see how this nut case does when he’s got some .40s coming back at him and he’s getting tagged by some.
My bet is all these guys are galactic pussies when confronted or they get shot back at. These aren’t Navy Seals, these are pussies! I’m betting one round coming back at him and scoring a hit on his vest and he would have ran!
As I see it, that’s why we carry. When it’s time to fight or die…by god I’m fighting to live and I won’t be playing games if it ever happens.
It doesn’t even matter.
If in the course of his killing, a mass-shooter has been engaged with a firearm, it has stopped the massacre, either through the wounding/death of the killer, or causing him to lose his nerve and surrender, leave or become “an hero”.
Every.
Single.
time.
Except that literally nothing can ever prove what you’ve been saying about anything, and that you’re also a non-thinker which consequently always leads to the former, anyway. There was no luck involved at all. A soft armor vest cannot stop rifle bullets. All he had to do was aim and put rounds on target. Even if he only had a handgun, he knew enough to shoot the bastard in the legs, anyway, which he did at least once..
So, let’s face some actual cold, hard facts, shall we? Even if these nut cases have the element of surprise on their side, as they often do, an “anemic pop gun” is still better than what you’ve been proposing: passing every single solitary gun control law, no matter how ineffective and draconian, that pops into your empty little head from hearing it on Clnton’s “News” Network or reading it from the Huffington COMpost. You would rather them be disarmed and completely helpless rather than they have even the slightest chance of fighting back.
Don’t even bother arguing with me, either, because everyone else here has read your screeds practically wetting yourself with orgasmic glee waiting for sweeping gun control laws to be passed, and on multiple occasions no less. Regardless, you’re wrong, you know you’re wrong, you’ve always been wrong, and you’ll always be wrong. And that’s the end of that discussion right there. But, I’ll be waiting for the inevitable ad hominems, condescension, and weak (non)arguments that you could never back with any valid data points. That’s all we get from you.
I am a blue collar type worker. I try to keep two jobs at all time for financial security reasons. The pro-2A medical courier company I worked for lost its only contract to another company that actually bid much more (shitty story). I have now found that every company I get an offer from is rabidly anti-employee carry. Even a gun salesman job at Cabelas is a mandated and checked unarmed job. The manager there told me, with a straight face it was so that if “somebody came in and started shooting up the place their employees wouldn’t be targets”. I asked him if they told their self defense theories to their gun customers. I also heard that HomeDepot won’t even let employees carry pocket knives. I am about to accept a job at one of these employee disarmers. I feel like puking. I will of course carry my smallest gun concealed and I expect not to last there too long, I hear tattling is rampant. I am an ardent capitalist and property rights advocate but I sure hate most of corporate America.
.308 sails right through that vest. Go big or go home
If the armor is level IIIA or lower any rifle caliber sails right through it. If he indeed had a plate, it is likely it was III or better, then most .308 bullets will not penetrate because III plates are designed to stop them. .308 is rarely a better armor penetrator than .223.
I am certain that if I walked into my church with an M1A, someone would ask me to leave.
Absolutely certain.
And an M1A isn’t even an “assault rifle.”
Neither is an AR-15.
Those who get their news from MSN “News” shows are told otherwise. They think any “black rifle” is an assault rifle, easily converted to fire thirty rounds a second. They think that because that’s what they are told to think.
Ruger doesn’t make an AR-15. Only Colt makes an AR-15. Ruger does make an AR-556.
Beg your pardon, I’m certainly not an expert, but by your standard here, wouldn’t Armalite be the only company making a true AR-15? Sort of like how Colt is the only company who makes a true 1911?
IIRC, Armalite sold the manufacturing/licensing rights for the AR15 to Colt. So, Colt is the only manufacturer to make an actual AR15. Everyone else makes a rifle patterned after the AR15.
Then my question has been answered!
If you consider buying the rights to a name to confer sole authentic status on something.
If you consider buying the rights to a name to confer sole authentic status on something.
Yeah, especially when the parts are interchangeable.
Ruger also makes the SR-556, a pricy piston operated AR-15. But in this case it was a Ruger AR-556. Other news outlets have identified it as Model 8515, which is the AR-556 variant that has a Magpul MOE collapsible stock and Magpul MOE M-LOK handguard (the Model 8500 is the regular old AR-556 with Ruger furniture).
Survivors in the Church point to many times someone with a gun could have shot at and even hit the attacker and actually saved lives…….he changed magazines 14 times, and had there been armed people in the church, they could have returned fire, especially since everyone had hit the deck, either from being shot or from seeking cover…he was standing there all by himself….and then he walked around executing the survivors……another point where armed people in the church could have shot at him and even hit him….
Hmmm….. I had a conversation (yes, that’s sarcasm) with an anti-gunner recently who was convinced no one needed guns because anyone could tackle the shooter during a reload.
This event weakens his argument, doesn’t it?
Two things were noteworthy to me about the whole interview with Mr. Willeford.
1) He didn’t keep a loaded magazine. Doesn’t everyone?
2) By my count he took 3 shots to the head. None connected. And this guy was likely a better shooter than I’ll ever be.
I’m not going to fault the good guys decision to target the openings on the kevlar garments, but I’m wondering if that was even necessary? Why not take a tactical head shot? He wouldn’t be driving down the road after that.
Please stop perpetuating false autopsy reports. THE AUTOPSY HAS NOT BEEN RELEASED YET.
I will not second guess a man that stopped the continued slaughter of defenseless women, elderly, and children. I will say, “Thank You”.
“…Sutherland Springs Shooter Wore Bullet Resistant Vest, Carried 15 30-Round Ammunition Magazines, 2 Handguns and a Ruger AR-15”
So what?
I am not trying to be callous, I am just pointing out that what he had or wore or carried have little to nothing to do with what he was going to do/did.
None of the things he wore made him do what he did.
None of the things he carried made him do what he did.
Through whatever warped mental pathway he took he came to the conclusion that he was going to go kill some people. He could have used any number of things to accomplish his task and until someone starts calling it car-violence or bat-violence or gasoline-violence all you are doing is accepting their rules of the conversation.
Comments are closed.