Jack Wilson feat
Jack Wilson (Courtesy Twitter)

The Texas governor, Greg Abbott, praised the church members for “swiftly ending the attack”.

But the gun-control group Newtown Action, which was founded after the 2012 shooting at Sandy Hook elementary school, pointed out that the congregant who shot the gunman was reportedly a former FBI agent.

Such instances of defensive firearm use are also rare in the larger landscape of America’s gun violence. According to the not-for-profit Gun Violence Archive, only 1,532 gun violence deaths in the US this year have been the result of defensive use, representing about 4% of the total number of such deaths.

That total figure – 39,150 gun violence deaths in 2019 – now includes the two innocent congregants who were shot in the span of a few seconds on Sunday, despite the presence of a “good guy with a gun”.

– Joan E. Greve in Texas shooting details supercharge NRA’s ‘good guy with a gun’ defense

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

122 COMMENTS

  1. Being a former FBI agent means nothing. That has no bearing on the fact that his life was in danger as was the lives of everyone else in the church.I’m sure that someone in the FBI gets extensive training but it isn’t like the average gun owner can’t get trained. It’s just pointless nonsense to focus on these things this way. This makes it sound like only FBI agents carry concealed firearms.

    • https://www.fbi.gov/video-repository/becoming-an-agent-series-firearms-training.mp4/view

      FBI Special Agents recieve a lot of range time on handguns, but no force on force training beyond that. And Special Agents are only 1/3rd of the FBI’s ranks. Desk jockeys are also generically “agents” and don’t even have to know how to use a gun.

      But of course none of this matters to a leftist, because their only concern is making the public completely dependant on the government, and that means restricting firearm ownership to people marked as special authority regardless of any training they may or may not have recieved. The last leftist I had an actual discussion about the carrying of handguns with seemed to think that every single police officer does SWAT style MOUT drills with a handgun daily. A patently absurd notion of course, but it was really about how he FELT that, being as they represented governmental authority, that they could magically spend all day every day training in a way that private citizens simply couldn’t, and yet still somehow do their jobs as well.

      • Good thing the press isn’t focusing on all the late comes who pulled their irons and muzzled the congregation while racing to the action. Now that was scary. And embarrassing.

        • And how many of the congregation were shot by the other citizens with their firearms ? None. No action ever goes text book perfect, you should know this.

        • The rules of gun safety are designed so that someone must break multiple rules simultaneously for an accident to occur. There are also situations where it is absolutely required to break one of the rules in order to function.

          1. “All guns are always loaded.” If you believe this is always true, then you’re unlikely to have an accident. You’re also unlikely to ever clean your firearm. It will eventually jam, and you’ll have to take it to someone who will break the first rule to clean it for you. Treating all guns as if they are always loaded all the time is more dangerous than assuming that a gun is unloaded after you have checked it twice and not left it unattended.

          2. “Never point the firearm at something you are unwilling to destroy.” Good policy, and important if the firearm is loaded because only safety devices and trigger discipline stand in the way on an accident. Muzzling someone is discouraged because carelessness can cause an accident and risk outweighs the benefits, under NORMAL circumstances. Abnormal circumstances: Running up a beach on D-day. If you are holding your rifle at the ready, and are trying not to trip on bad terrain, someone’s going to get muzzled. The risk of an accident is relatively minor compared to the risk of the pillbox and MG-42 a little up the hill. Abnormal circumstances: Someone trying to kill you at church while panicked people flit around the pews. There is one direction you can point a pistol and be 95% sure you aren’t muzzling someone–straight up in the air. Using your limited concentration to keep the barrel pointed at the ceiling is a waste of precious resources in such a pinch. The risk of accidentally shooting someone is minor compared to the danger of being distracted from the clear and present danger.

          BTW there is no such thing as a “latecomer” in a gunfight until a doctor has declared your enemy legally dead. Read about Platt and Matix in the famous 1986 FBI shootout. Matix was rendered unconscious by a shot to the head and one to the neck. He shook it off and got his ass up a little later and joined his co-conspirator in a car for a getaway attempt.

    • The problem is that he was never and FBI agent. His own bio says he was a reserve deputy from like 80 to 86…. and spent 30 years doing contract negotiations w the fed. No FBI. Maybe one of the other parishioners were, but not this guy.

      Anti’s have to jump on this and conflate because this is a stark, clear, no bs example of good guy w a gun.

      Even shannon watts called him a ‘highly trained’ sheriff… ignoring that in the 80s you literally had like 40 hours of training to be a reserve/aux deputy.

      They have to jump on that. Just as if I did it, they would say I was highly trained former military…

      But in reality I was an aircraft mechanic in the navy 30 years ago…

      • I haven’t heard him say he was anything but a reserve deputy a long time ago. Maybe in the military before that. Back in those days they didn’t really have the handguns we have now, which means they also didn’t have the same training.

        From what I paid attention to, everyone on the security team has no prior experience with guns, military nor police work. He had to train them all and even get some of them to not be scared of guns.

        This is no special security firm with the latest and greatest training and weapons. They are not former operators with a lot of combat experience. They are just some church goers who do not want evil to thrive against a disarmed populace.

    • He never said he was the FBI from his interviews! He was a firearms instructor for a place called On Target from what I have seen and a reserve deputy!

      I can do a head-shot all day with irons with my pistol out to 200yds on a 8 inch plate!

      The Leftist wants the public to think only some super trained Delta Force God should be carrying guns and they are the only ones capable of such a average shot ..that any target shooter could do!

      We use to shoot bottle caps @ 100yds as kids with 22’s headshot @ 30-50 ft ain’t hard.

    • Sorry, not former FBI. Also how many of those people were shot in Chicago, Detriot and other Liberal Shit Holes. !0,000 people get shot by an illeagally ownwd weapon, 1,000 people shoot and kill someone in self defence but the 1,000 doesn’t matter because of the 10,000 shot by illeagally owned guns. Only an idiot would make this arguement, or a damned liberal democrat.

  2. They’re really reaching now, aren’t they? The silence from the usual suspects over the last few days has been deafening! Two worst things for their agenda happened, an armed citizen ended it, and the scumbag didnt use an AR!

  3. I guess maybe I’m missing the anti-gun point. Who cares who did the defensive shooting? Maybe it was an Alaskan hunting guide on vacation, or an ex Marine in his home…The point is, lives are saved by defensive shooters. Who they are makes no difference. Having competent, armed people present, saves lives…

    • They’re desperately trying to make the case that the defender was not an “average” citizen (whatever that means), but rather that he was someone who had special training or something that allowed him to do what the average citizen could not. So pay no attention to this, it was a fluke and an outlier and shut up!

      Basically it shows their mockery is misplaced and their lies are wearing thin(ner).

      • Yes; it’s an extension of their basic concept that a gun in the hands of a law enforcement officer is a responsible tool to protect the public, while a gun in the hand of a non-LEO is a deadly threat, just waiting to kill innocent people out of malice or recklessness. They’ve got to kill the idea that an “ordinary” citizen could have used a gun responsibly to end a threat. If the truth has to be sacrificed to preserve the narrative, then sacrificed it will be.

        • And at the same time they spew hatred for police, claim they are racist misogynist bigots who abuse their power, etc. but the left likes to have it both ways, always contradicting themselves and pretending that it’s okay.

        • “..the left likes to have it both ways, always contradicting themselves and pretending that it’s okay…”

          That is because Feminism is held to a lower standard and ‘allowed’ to have double standards.

          Since the Democratics are largely Feminist based, they continue playing with those rules.

          It means you never have to use facts, admit you’re wrong, or say you are sorry.

          Until we find a balance, Feminism will continue to wreck havoc on our nation.
          .

      • I don’t care how much training one has with handguns. When it gets real and the adrenalin starts pumping, it takes nerves of steel to line up on target and maintain a steady enough hold to take down someone who is shooting back. Training helps, but you can’t train for the real thing. You can only hope that you can remain cool enough to get the job done.

        • Seentoomuch – Training is all about training for the “real thing”. Training for unrealistic scenario’s is a waste of time and effort. One MUST train for what they may encounter, otherwise you are wandering in the dark.

      • What i find interesting is our usually rabidly anti-gun media in australia have been treating this case with quite a bit of praise for the actions of the church-goers in stopping him. usually they are making the defendant out to be the perpetrator even if it is a cop that shot an armed perpetrator.

    • If someone/anyone saves your life, does it really matter if this someone/anyone is ex anything? As for me the history of the person saving my life is of no consequence and it doesn’t matter if he had a permit to carry or was not supposed to even have a gun, HE SAVED MY LIFE AND OTHERS! Buy him a steak!

      • “As for me the history of the person saving my life is of no consequence…”

        That is because you, POTG, are not the target audience. Background matters because only highly-trained, long-experienced, current and former police and military are qualified to have a gun for use in defending others. You gotta admit, it would make liberal heads explode if the defender had only owned his gun for a week, and had received no formal training. A newbie, one-shot, head-shot, one and done.

      • Only extensively trained, properly anointed agents of state can use guns the right way. Regular people would just hurt themselves and other bystanders, so they should not be allowed to even try. Just ask Bloomberg.

    • Counting the one who died, I counted 6 men with guns moving toward danger. The universal whine of the snowflakes is that in such a situation, the wild shooting *at each other* would kill many innocents while the bad guy escapes. Did anybody notice the first indication of one of those defenders trying to shoot another one? Of course not. But you wait, within a few months we’ll be hearing all the same nonsense again, they have always known it was lies, they don’t care.

      • Are you suggesting the gun grabbers like our own crisco Vlad from other planets lied again when they said that gun owners will always cower in fear and run away? Mind … blown.

  4. Since when was legitimate self defense a part of “1,532 gun violence deaths”. Words have meaning. Doesn’t help that many areas where these “gun violence” issues are the biggest problem, armed self defense is restricted.

    • The use of the phrase “gun violence” is a planned and effective program to establish a mindset in the American people that guns=violence, therefore must be abolished.

      Any time there is a death caused by a shooter they repeatedly use the phrase. It has nothing to do with what happened, it has to do with the left’s agenda of disarming all citizens and creating their communist utopia.

      The results of governments banning firearms:

      1. In 1911 in Turkey guns were restricted and as a result one and a half million Armenians were unable to defend themselves and were ethnically cleaned by the government.

      2. In 1929 the former Soviet Union established gun control and as a result Stalin’s government killed 40 million Soviets.

      3. Hitler in Nazi Germany established his version of Gun control in 1938 where millions of Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, mentally ill, disabled, and eventually some of the “brown shirts” who worked for the government were killed.

      4. In 1935 Communist China established gun control and 50 million political dissidents were arrested and killed.

      5. In 1964 to 1981 Guatemala established gun control and 100,000 were killed.

      6. In 1970 Uganda established gun control and from 1970-1979 300,000 Christians were killed by the dictatorial government.

      7. In 1975-1977 Cambodia gun restriction laws prevented people from defending themselves against the tyrannical government who arrested and killed one million people.

      8. In 1994 Rwanda disarmed the Tutsi people and being unable to defend themselves one million were executed.

      Train your children and grandchildren. Never give up your guns. Be Prepared !

      • In 1935, China was under Japanese imperialism, though I doubt the Japanese allowed the Chinese guns. Communism didn’t take hold in China until the 40’s, with guns being used for the communist party to take control. Your point is valid, but the date and circumstances are a bit off.

        • Actually, in 1935 the Japanese controlled only coastal pockets of Chinese territory (in which they undoubtedly disarmed any Chinese that had weapons). The interior was controlled either by Chiang’s nationalist army, or by Mao’s communist route army, or by various warlords. They weren’t exactly benevolent in their views of Chinese weapons owners, either.

          Happy New Year to all y’all – health, prosperity, happiness and adequate firepower be yours. And may the gun control regime come crashing down as we watch.

      • You could add the Highland Clearances to the list of results of arms control on the common citizens/subjects.

      • This.

        We need to get beyond believing, or accepting from those who hate us and our rights, that only a dead body is worthy of claiming that a firearm prevented a crime. I can cite two instances in my life where I’m certain the known presence of a firearm prevented people from breaking into my old farm house- pure case of mistaken residence outside the suburban area. A week after I ran off the first carload, the next place west of me, a known dope place, was attacked, 2 women shot dead and one guy left gravely wounded with a small infant also left unharmed.

        The mere presence of a firearm, and/or the knowledge by wrong-doers that it is fairly likely that one may be present can make all the difference in crating a “non-incident”. Don’t show your cards until someone calls, you may just bluff your way through.

        • “…that only a dead body is worthy of claiming that a firearm prevented a crime.”

          Your suggestion resonates with POTG, however….

          We end up talking “anecdotes” to people allegedly presenting fact, data. Bodies are tangible, stats about DGUs have a heavy element of estimation and/or extrapolation. To further disable non-body DGUs as a persuasive argument, there are always news reports of body counts, rarely (if ever) news accounts of DGUs where no one was shot or killed.

          We need to understand the anti-gun brain muddle in order to have even a chance of defeating it. Here is one line of thought: a dead bad guy possessing a easily leads to the declaration, “If there were no guns, the bad guy wouldn’t have a gun, and a good guy with a gun wouldn’t be necessary, or even possible.” This leads to, “Without guns, the bad guy couldn’t steal them from obviously irresponsible gun owners, the bad guy couldn’t commit crimes with a gun, and there would be no need for a good guy with a gun”.

          Ultimately, anti-gunners don’t care how many lives are saved through armed self-defense. All that matters is that one innocent person is saved because there were no guns to be had.

        • Sam, the attitudes of some of these people is truly amazing. Saw an interview today of a doofus who went on and on about how wonderful it would be if we just eliminated law enforcement altogether. How can one person be that stupid? Do you think maybe a group got together to develop advanced stupidity, then this guy was just the spokesdummy? I mean, this is even far beyond the level of stupidity that theorizes how wonderful life would be if we just made all guns disappear.

          • “Saw an interview today of a doofus who went on and on about how wonderful it would be if we just eliminated law enforcement altogether.”

            These are people who, despite unrelenting and indisputable evidence through human history, believe that people are naturally “good”, and become bad only because society forces them to stop being good. This, of course, means police enforcing laws that turn good people bad. Get rid of law enforcement, and good people will not turn bad.

            Makes perfect sense.

      • Yep. I was just doing the math and they’re claiming that 4% of all ‘gun deaths’ are justifiable self defense homicides. Since 2/3 of ‘gun deaths’ are suicide that means that 12% of all (gun) homicides are acts of self defense. Considering that far less than 12% of the population carry firearms on a regular basis, that’s quite a remarkable number. And that’s not just 1532 law abiding citizens making it home to their families, but also 1532 homicidal criminals taken off the streets for good.

        I think they just throw out these numbers thinking it will go right over everyone’s head and the strength of their conviction and the feigned altruism in their voice will sway peoples’ opinions their way. Must be terribly frustrating being a leftist in America.

        • In order for gun laws to work, we must expect the criminal to obey them. Liberals keep doing the same things over and over again expecting different results. That is the definition of insanity. Stop voting for these liberal nuts expecting different results if you don’t want people to think you are also insane.

    • It’s also funny how they only count dead attackers against dead victims. No mention of all those cases where no shots were necessary to dissuade the attacker, or where the attacker got his lead injection, but lived.

  5. So basically they’re saying there isn’t enough defensive firearm use, so…we should arm more people and teach them how to use it??

  7. 1532 is more like 10% since around 60% of those 39,000 are suicides. So 1 in 10 people killed with a firearm was killed in self defense, and therefore we need to disarm everyone and just let those 1532 people be raped/robbed/murdered…for the good of the Collective. Fucking commies.

    • Not to forget that disarmament of the population would only encourage the violent criminals and number of victims would get up.

  8. The left hates the fact that lots of armed church members responded and the bad guy was cut down in short order. They hate guns and gun owners, they don’t much like Christians either for that matter.

    • If it turns out that the attacker was a Muslim on jihad or a trans activist or something their heads will literally explode.

      • Nah, he wasn’t Instead he was a petty criminal/usually homeless person with an anger management issue, and a long rap sheet covering multiple states. Rumor has it that he was pissed off when they offered him food and clothing but refused his demand for money. He had been to the church on a number of occasions, but was wearing a fake beard and tried to disguise his identity.

        • But why address mental health when we can infringe on law abiding citizens’ Second Amendment rights?

      • He was already identified as a 40 something year old white male attempting to look like he wasn’t a white male when he committed the shooting. I read he had many problems because he didn’t have a good parent. He even married a woman twice his age when he turned 19.

        He is the stereotype…

  11. Ghouls…like calling murdered babies “products of conception”. The evil leftards wants you dead and disarmed. For the children😩😯😢

  12. I am thankful for the security team ending the matter after it began. I am bothered that the shooter was observed to be in a fake beard and wig by congregation members and security and no one, perhaps of wanting to be PC, having perceived something out of the ordinary approached the shooter. I would like to think my Spidy-senses would have given me cause to cautiously approach him to see what is up. Maybe and this is a big maybe, he could have been intercepted and disarmed without a shot and lives lost. And please dont get me wrong, he needed to be ended, but what of the others?

    What is the old saying, action beats reaction everytime?

    Respectfully.

    • During last night’s vigil, the pastor said that the man was not unknown to the congregation. The pastor said that he had met him before at the church and fed him.
      “Normalcy bias” is a real thing, and sometimes it will get you killed.

      • We did the same at our church for a newcomer who seemed a bit “off”. Welcomed and fed him, with a plan to help further as necessary. A few weeks later, he broke into the church offices and committed vandalism, so we unfortunately had to have him arrested with charges.

        Not everyone wants help.

        • Likely drugs.

          Drug addicts only want help surviving so they can consume more drugs. Don’t help drug addicts that don’t want to stop doing drugs.

    • They said they noticed him before he went into the church. They didn’t want to be unwelcoming of homeless, they help the homeless. They helped him in the past. However, they felt something was wrong after noticing he was wearing fake hair. So the security team focused the cameras on him and they all were watching him. A couple of the security team sat next to him. One of the security members tried to talk to him before he whipped out the gun. Then the security member attempted to draw his gun to save the man. He was shot dead trying to stop the shooting.

      They didn’t know if he was a threat, but they knew something wasn’t right. They didn’t want to frisk him for guns nor call the cops to do it for them. That’s what the lefties would do. They have guns, they have the ability to defend themselves.

      • “They didn’t know if he was a threat, but they knew something wasn’t right. They didn’t want to frisk him for guns nor call the cops to do it for them. That’s what the lefties would do. They have guns, they have the ability to defend themselves.”

        Except they didn’t and some died. I am a medic. I like to help people too, but when someone isn’t acting right or acting like a potential threat, as was this man, we check for weapons and remove if found. Doesn’t matter if the church likes to help the homeless or not. Their safety is primary. As for “that’s what lefties would do”, in this case, they would be have been the smart one and I really don’t see a need to bring politics into this. Other than that I think we are on the same page with this. I might be a lot more paranoid than most and would have moved out or sat right next to him because to many somthing was seriously wrong.

        If you see something out of place and a possible threat, training cameras on the guy is not going to save a life. Someone might easily have walked over to him, said hello, put an arm around his waist as if to guide him to a seat and possibly detected the shotgun. At any rate, you show up at my house dressed as such with a wig and fake beard and long coat, you aren’t getting in until I have verified you to be unarmed. Additionally, had two or three security stopped him outside the sanctuary and spoke with him they might have deprived him of a target-rich environment and or a chance to shoot.

        To your point that there was a security member sitting next to the man and he drew but was shot and killed before getting a shot off; I am very sorry for the loss of his life in trying to protect his congregation. But when watching the video there was another man between the first defender to draw his gun (I am assuming that is who you are talking about) and the shooter. It appeared he was ten to 15 feet away, too far to close the gap, too close to evade the shot. My point was, if someone was sitting RIGHT next to him, and able to reach out and “touch” him if he so much as flinched wrong, there may have been a much better chance to control the muzzle and disable him from making a shot. This brave defender did not have a chance, and I am not faulting him at all. He was in a disadvantaged position and performed as best the situation allowed.

        I had noted in my first comment that the shooter made a lot of people nervous wether they knew him or not. They perceived a possible threat. I think they would have been justified to have security approach and verify this person to be or not be a threat and that would include helping him off with his coat and possibly beard and wig.

        I applaud the security team and the fearlessness they showed and their ability to stop a deadly threat quickly. I just asked if perhaps the good people of the church and security placed not wanting to possibly offend the man ahead of good security and thus they missed an opportunity to take the shooter without a shot. A bad guy is going to exploit whatever weakness that might lead to an advantage. Don’t give it to them.

        I enjoy this blog and the opportunity to express my opinion and learn from everyone out there. I think most of us stand with the Sheepdogs, very much like the security team at thi church does. God Bless.

        • They have met him before and he has been there multiple times. They talked to him a few times before he decided to shoot them. They followed him around. They sat around him. There was an armed woman and man of the security team sitting near him. The people sitting right next to him was the family of the black man who was shot dead; you can hear them screaming and running to him after the shooting. They tried to isolate him. Some people moved away from him. He got up and went to the bathroom before he sat back down and started his attack.

          What they didn’t do was pat him down, which would be illegal to do. They would have to kick him out if they couldn’t pat him down with consent. They didn’t want to be unwelcoming of the homeless man they helped in the past. I guess some people would blame their religion for being too accepting…

  13. Brother-In-Law tried to use “too few to matter” argument about successful DGU shootings. I asked if he thought 900+ lives saved was a bad thing. He said, “Of course not”. To which I replied, “Without a gun in hand, those 900+ would be dead, and those deaths the direct responsibility of people opposed to private gun use.” He then stepped in it up to his knees saying, “Not all those 900+ would have necessarily been killed.”

    Then I slipped the shiv into his gut: “But if it saved only one.”

    • “Not all those 900+ would have necessarily been killed.”

      As if 450+ killed and 450+ raped, robbed, savagely beaten and left for dead sounds much better.

      • “As if 450+ killed and 450+ raped, robbed, savagely beaten and left for dead sounds much better.”

        For people like my BIL, that outcome is highly desirable because gun owners are just one insult or hurt away from shooting up a mall.

    • “Then I slipped the shiv into his gut: “But if it saved only one.””

      Damn straight. Fair is fair. Throw it right back in his face…

  14. Quite hilarious that the gun control morons use a body count as a measure of the *success* of guns for defensive use.

    But of course, it’s always about furthering the narrative, so they have no choice but to use the only numbers they can find that can even halfway support their position.

  15. This wasn’t just a single defensive gun use. I counted around 7 armed people on the video. That means there were 7 defensive gun use in the church.

    We can play at statistics, too.

    • “Everyone ignores the elephant in the room.”

      Damn straight, it’s plain as day –

      Widdle peegeee2 is a one-trick-pony with his anti-vaxx bullshit that no one wants to hear, even thought TTAG management told him it wasn’t welcome in here any more.

      Knock that shit off, boy. We’re tired of hearing it…

  17. “two innocent congregants who were shot in the span of a few seconds on Sunday, despite the presence of a “good guy with a gun”.”

    Are you fking kidding me? i think the other 200ish congregants in general and the 30-50 in the shooters specific line of sight would disagree and are in fact very happy to be alive and not dead due to that “good guy with a gun”…

    The denial of reality is strong with this one. the only way to theoretically stop something like this from happening (short of outlaw all guns, metal detectors etc) is to have such a large percentage of the populous armed and that everyone knows that say 25% of the populous is armed in any one area that trying to make ur point and take everyone to hell with you will not get very far.
    Short of that I dont see this ever really stopping.
    That man who shot from across the room is a hero. he should never have to pay for a beer again.

    • “Are you fking kidding me?”

      I think you are missing the point of the comment. You gotta “walk a mile….”

      You see, with liberals, intentions are all that count. Their solutions are not required to be highly effective. If you oppose liberals, and provide an alternative, your solution must be 100% effective, in all circumstances. This is because liberals have only benevolent solutions that provide the bestest for the mostest. Opponents, not being liberals, propose solutions that only benefit the privileged.

      See how that works?

      • And it’s ok for the left to discount any idea that is likely to have risks unless it’s their idea.
        Michael Savage said it best, liberalism is a mental disorder

  18. Well that didn t take long nor surprise anyone. Can’t have the commoners defend themselves with guns or believe they can.

  19. So what’s the number of defensive gun uses? That’s more important than defensive gun deaths. You don’t need to kill someone to stop or deter them.

    • Even if it’s a Liberal gun grabber? Truth don’t have to be pretty. It just has to be the truth. Keep your Powder dry.

  20. You Jethros and Hillbillies have so little to cheer about don’t you? 2020 is around the corner and your president is about to be removed from office. I predict he will be gone by the end of January. Nancy Pelosi will replace him and the downfall of white racist supremacists will begin. Kamala Harris may not be a candidate for president but she has united people of color, the immigrant population, and the indigenous peoples of this country. With Pelosi leading the way the country will convert to a socialist ideology and your damned guns, all your damned guns will be confiscated under penalty of prison or worse. Never again will you oppress people of color and their friends with your weapons of violence. And then in 2021 when either Bloomberg, Warren, or Biden is president the process of re-educating you morons will begin. You will bow to the socialist media. CNN, MSNBC will be the only news you watch as they become the highest rated shows in the country. The local police under the protection of UN troops will monitor all people and any guns found will be taken and destroyed by force if need be. 2020 will be the year when this country is recreated under the flag of socialism. What will you do Jethro’s? Your guns taken and destroyed. Your children re-educated under the new socialist agenda. People of color now in charge of your government. A tidal wave of blue to wash away the evil of gun owners. Deal with that Jethro’s!

    • Vlad Tepes –

      Apparently your severe mental retardation prevents you from seeing the actual facts. As nothing that you claim in error is going to take place. You freaks have committed suicide and your precious party of treason will soon be deceased.

      Now be a good little traitor-troll and go back into your closet for the next five years [at least].

    • Reread the Constitution, Vlad. Pence replaces him, not Nancy Pants. She would replace Pence in the event he is unable to perform the duties of the office.unless Pence appoints a new VP to take his place were he to become president. So keep dreaming of your utopia that will never happen.

      • And Trump isn’t going anywhere once Nancy gets the guts to submit the articles to the Senate. The articles of impeachment are a joke. A whole lotta nothing burger wrapped up in pretty toilet paper. The only people who believe there’s something there are so blinded by their hatred of what Trump stands for and has done that they can no longer understand reality. Every key witness said “no impeachable offense.”

        The more likely scenario, once the trial happens and Biden’s antics come out, is that Biden ends up in prison and there’s a huge landslide election removing all the freshman representatives who won only because the media hyped up the investigation based upon lies so that folks were wary of Trump and other running on a R ticket.

      • “She would replace Pence in the event he is unable to perform the duties of the office.unless Pence appoints a new VP to take his place were he to become president.”

        My dream scenario if Trump were to expire would be for Pence to appoint Sarah Palin as the new VP.

        Then, if Pence has an aneurysm and dies, we would have… a drum roll, please…

        President Sarah Palin. The Leftist heads exploding like strings of firecrackers would be sweet, sweet music… 😉

    • Fake news from a fake Vlad Tepes…BTW the “charges” aren’t indicative of impeachment, they’re more like liberals hurt feelings. Contempt of congress ? We’re all contemptuous of THIS congress. No valid proof of abuse of power only a make believe whistleblower. I think there’s some other blowers involved here.

    • Excellent trolling. An A for effort, but a bit too over the top. Thank you for the morning humor with my coffee.

  22. You, dummy, you stop the nut who comes into your church with that hymnal about 2 inches thick. I’m not EX-FBI but I would have reacted that way because I’ve trained for it and done something you probably think impossible and that is to mentally practice such scenarios which is similar to dry-firing. If you don’t what that is Google it. If he had a machete like the NY anti-Semite it still would have taken a gun to stop him. Why do you people demonstrate an inability to engage in rational thought? Which makes you followers even worse than you.

  23. Well it did take him 6 seconds to fire from when the perp pulled the shotgun. Two people died whilst he was fumbling with his draw. With a little practice he could have got 3 shots off in under 3 seconds and saved 2 lives. But still, he does deserve credit for eventually taking down the perp
    As Aaron says…..”train accordingly….”

    • One of those men [Richard White] killed was on the security team. He tried to save the other man [Tony Wallace] but he couldn’t get his gun out fast enough. He sacrificed his life in a futile attempt, however his death was not in vain, he gave another member of the security team the time to draw and aim.

      I believe not many modern day cops would have taken a blast to the chest to save another man. They rather wait outside.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2y6Astsrwi4

  24. How about we look at how this man does his special operator tacticool training that brought his level beyond the average cop? He has a whole million dollar training setup he uses to teach the church’s security team of volunteers. It’s top secret level training only special FBI agents get after decades on the job.

    In all seriousness. This guy made the shot because he trained for that specific engagement. Mostly because he is limited in what he can do at his range.

    Unfortunately, there was “training scars” created due to the limitations of the range the church security team trains at. The main one being not moving while drawing. They are going to need more space to teach how to get out of the line of fire and draw on the move. Also drawing from the seated position seems like another necessary lesson.

    Maybe people can donate some soft armor to the church’s security team so they won’t die from a shotgun blast nor pistol rounds. It could have said one of those men.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kciJclao2TM

    • If we all had a home range to shoot in everyone would have better marksmanship. Not just a retired part time cop. Or just more commercial and public ranges. But part of the plan to disarm everyone is also to close practice ranges.

    • I agree on the training scenarios. There are some great professional training facilities around the country that teach just this sort of thing: draw/shoot on the move, from cover in different positions, scenario training, seated position, situational awareness. All this can be trained and at least IMHO it is well worth the $’s and time. For example https://www.sigsaueracademy.com.

      This is not a criticism of the gentleman who rose to action and was cut down. You can’t train bravery, and he had it and also enough skill to get partway through his draw. Not saying I could have done better. Only that we can learn from tragedy. God rest his soul.

  25. Yeah, two innocent people died. As tragic as that is, the fact is that an armed civilian ( former FBI or not, he’s still a civilian) stopped the shooter at just two. No, he didn’t prevent zero lives from being taken. But he prevented 3. He prevented a dozen. More. Nobody on our side is saying that an armed citizen will prevent every active shooter from taking even a single life. None of us are that naive. If a shooter bursts into a diner full of cops and opens fire, he’s still gonna kill somebody before he’s taken out. But, when potential victims are armed, that levels the playing field, and can keep the body count down. That dude walked into a church in Texas, where at least seven people were armed. He was outnumbered and outgunned from the start, and he didn’t know it. And isn’t that the whole point of concealed carry?

    • Yes, concealed carry does make the criminal think he can walk into a place and start murdering.

      The criminal doesn’t know there are armed people inside. So he gets to fire three shots killing two people before he dies. The first person he kills is the man trying to get his concealed gun out of his clothing.

      Maybe open carry would have made the murderer learn this wasn’t going to work after he looked around before going into the bathroom to prepare his attack.

      I have seen so many people get attacked because the criminal thought they were unarmed.

      I would say CCWers get attacked more than open carriers do in the United States. In other countries, the open carrier gets attacked more than the CCWer.

  26. Addressing the shooting I’ll not argue time, training or caliber. Thank God that on this day good triumphed over evil. Nothing more needs to be said but condolences and thanks. Happy New Year to all. PM

  27. “According to the not-for-profit Gun Violence Archive, only 1,532 gun violence deaths in the US this year have been the result of defensive use, representing about 4% of the total number of such deaths.”

    That is because often just letting the criminal know you are armed is enough to end the confrontation. Naturally, these are counted by the gun confiscation groups as they have a clear agenda: Ban guns, period.

  29. I don’t know why the left can’t see it (well, actually, I do know, but I needed a good lead-in line) but the contrast between Sutherland Springs and White Settlement says it all:

    Sutherland — no armed civilians in church — 26 dead, 20 wounded

    White — armed civilians in church — 2 dead, 0 wounded

    Anti-gunners just can’t be happy unless they have a high body count to push their agenda. It’s really pretty sick.

  30. I didnt read all this thread but the issue was raised and to me the most salient, the shooter should have never made it into the sanctuary. What is the point of all the perimeter passive security and “eyes on” the unusual fellow in the fake beard and wig? Have the “security team” passively screening people at the door. Guy with a fake beard and wig, CONDITION RED or whatever. If you are worried about getting sued vs getting dead, post a sign that says we reserve the right to trespass anyone from the premises. My wife’s church (i’ve disowned it) will not take this s#it seriously even after numerous break ins, vandalism and a real dumpster fire started by an AA member. What are they waiting for to get serious, a death? So they can get sued like the temple in CA that took money from a govt agency (us) for security, did nothing and now they have a body count and a law suit. Remember folks, you can act faster than you can react!

Comments are closed.