June 10, 2014

Kicking the dead body of the armed citizen who stepped forward to stop a shooting spree.

From the NYT report "Antigovernment Obsession Preceded Las Vegas Shootings":
[T]he Millers crossed the street to the Walmart. Mr. Miller fired a round and announced: “Get out! This is a revolution. Police are on the way.”

Amid the pandemonium, Joseph Wilcox, 31, who had been in the checkout line, approached Mr. Miller brandishing a weapon, the police said. Ms. Miller pulled a pistol out of her purse and fatally shot him in the midsection, the police said.

“He died attempting to protect others,” Sheriff Douglas C. Gillespie said of Mr. Wilcox. “His death is completely senseless.”
That's the NYT template: Guns for self-defense and the defense of others is the delusion of pathetic rubes. Wilcox thought he could be a hero, and he drew the target on himself. Sheriff Gillespie's first statement "He died attempting to protect others" sounds like the usual respect for the dead, but the second statement "His death is completely senseless" is exactly the sound bite anti-gun people love.

A top-rated comment over at the NYT: "I thought a good guy with a gun was supposed to be able to stop a bad guy with a gun. Isn't that right Mr. LaPierre?"

117 comments:

PB Reader said...

The NYTimes has people who sometimes truly disgust me.

SomeoneHasToSayIt said...


Wilcox, like Han Solo, needed to shoot first. Probably died because he gave the female perp the PC benefit of the doubt.

And once again, when seconds counted, the police were minutes away.

In any event, the 2nd Amendment is to protect people from an oppressive government, and secondarily for personal self-defense. That first reason is getting more important than ever.

That's why The Left wants to change the focus.

Skeptical Voter said...

This story--or at least the NYT version of it doesn't add up. They shoot the guy in the midsection (apparently a fatal shot) then go "marauding through the Walmart". These heavily armed folks are "marauding", but there's no mention of any injuries to anybody. Then the woman shoots the man, and turns the gun on herself.

I think these two were a couple of sandwiches shy of a picnic lunch in the brains department. But I'm not much more impressed by the NYT reporters/editorial staff who put this pap together.

Anonymous said...

He didn't know the bad guy had a bad gal backup.

“His death is completely senseless.”
Would the death of a few sitting ducks make more sense?

Birkel said...

The deaths of the cops and the perpetrators were alls senseless. There is no making sense of the actions of crazy people.

Meanwhile, somewhere yesterday (I would be willing to bet) a sworn police officer discharged a weapon senselessly. But the NYT thinks cops are the only people who should have guns. And that's ok because the doormen at the NYT employees' respective buildings are the ones at risk, not the NYT employees.

Left Bank of the Charles said...

Mr. Miller may not have been seen her coming either: "Ms. Miller fired several shots at her husband, killing him, and then killed herself."

Balfegor said...

He died attempting to protect others,” Sheriff Douglas C. Gillespie said of Mr. Wilcox. “His death is completely senseless.”

Hopefully, Gillespie didn't intend that quite like it sounds -- probably meant to say that his killing was senseless, in the same way that if a police officer had died tried to protect others, his killing would be senseless (not his death, as such).

dbp said...

"A top-rated comment over at the NYT: "I thought a good guy with a gun was supposed to be able to stop a bad guy with a gun. Isn't that right Mr. LaPierre?""

Wow! Any decent person would regard a person who says this as the worlds biggest asshole. And yet, top rated. The guy had the means to resist and tried. He failed, but he died a hero. Would this commenter also think a soldier killed five feet from his landing craft on D-Day should have just stayed home?

SJ said...

I notice that the rampage did stop after the second set of good guys with guns intervened.

The first good guy with a gun happened to be outnumbered.

The second set of good guys with guns also had uniforms, badges, and Qualified Immunity.

But they do fit the description of "good guys with guns".

There's a claim that a Police representative called Wilcox a "hero", but the linked article doesn't contain that claim.

Odd.

The Drill SGT said...

It was a senseless killing, done by homicidal killers. It was a selfless act by the man who dies trying to protect others, using the minimum force possible, like the NYT always desires.

A cop would have fired first...

James Pawlak said...

Many "good guys" with guns were killed by Hitler's, Tojo's and Mao's armed tyrants.

Resisting the tyranny of all thugs should be expected to result in some like deaths.

David said...

"I thought a good guy with a gun was supposed to be able to stop a bad guy with a gun. Isn't that right Mr. LaPierre?"

Guy? He probably would have stopped the guy if the woman hadn't shot him.

mccullough said...

The two police officers were armed as well. They just weren't expecting to be shot either.

If the citizen had pulled out the gun, started shooting and hit a bystander then the NYT would complain about that as well. The guy was not a coward; he confronted evil but did not panic. It was a heroic action.

David said...

"His death is completely senseless" probably meant, in the mouth of the cop, "his killing was completely senseless." Which is was. As was the comment in the NYT.

Ann Althouse said...

"Probably died because he gave the female perp the PC benefit of the doubt."

Yes, that's exactly what I thought, except it's not PC. It's the traditional gender stereotype.

Kevin said...


If this had been like 99% of mass shootings, and been a LONE gunman, this would have turned out very differently.

Not only that, but female mass shooters are even rarer. This guy just had really bad luck.

But the NY Times using this as an anti-gun diatribe is sadly typical, and yet no less nauseatingly disgusting.

Mary Beth said...

They shot two policemen. I thought good guy police with guns were supposed to stop bad guys with guns.

If the NYT and commenters want to say stupid stuff, I can say stupid stuff right back. This accomplishes nothing other than raising the level of ambient stupidity, but I think that's their goal.

Ann Althouse said...

Wilcox died, but if the killers had kept going, trying to shoot everyone they could in the store instead of shifting to suicide, and if there had been other armed customers in the store, those others would not have hesitated to shoot.

And if Wilcox hadn't hesitated, but had shot based on his split-second instinct, he could have been wrong, and then he'd get the George Zimmerman template.

n.n said...

It was a senseless loss of two armed police officers and one armed civilian.

That said, are we ready to have that conversation? You know. The one about risk management and the reconciliation of principles which we hold dear.

Anonymous said...

Neither Wayne LaPierre, nor anyone else has ever said, "A good guy with a gun will always stop a bad guy with a gun."

Alex said...

Meanwhile cops around the country continue their genocide of young black men.

/Crack

Bob Boyd said...

In the twisted NYT world view, Wilcox and the two killers are essentially the same, nuts with guns eager to shoot somebody.

Alex said...

What was the race of the perps?

traditionalguy said...

This rare shooter team acted as a military squad that covered each other's backs as wingmen do.

They seemed as insane as the Manson family and the slenderman teens were.

But the narrative is that a surprise attack from behind on two police officers eating pizza means police are the only guys allowed guns in the fight.



SomeoneHasToSayIt said...

Ann wrote:
And if Wilcox hadn't hesitated, but had shot based on his split-second instinct, he could have been wrong, and then he'd get the George Zimmerman template.


True enough. But we need to work past all that.

BTW, even the foundational Zimmerman template was quite beatable. The lawyers just didn't see, or decided not to use, this angle.

The girl on the phone with Martin gave the needed opening, by strongly suggesting, maybe persuasively to Martin, that he was being stalked by a homosexual predator (an 'ass cracker'). Martin then may have decided a little 'gay bashing' was in order, instead of safely returning to the house. He was then killed in the attempt.

At the least, this would have fucked with the Left's narrative, which otherwise had the field to itself.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

How dare anyone even try to defend themselves or others, right NYTimes readers (and writers)? Crazy right wing loonies thinking of themselves as responsible for their own safety like actual free citizens--see, that's what gets you killed. Should have accepted their fate like good sheep, maybe tried to understand the killers' point of view, you know; respected diversity, that kind of thing. I guess the same for the uniformed officers who were killed. Those tough, gritty New Yorkers understand.

Disgusting.

Sigivald said...

When it works (which is not uncommon), the Times doesn't report it.

When it fails, it proves it can never work - because only guns in the hands of cops can stop a bad guy.

With magic cop powers, I guess; evidently they've never heard of Peel's Principles* - and they don't know, I suppose, that enthusiast shooters are much better marksmen than police, generally, and Joe Cop is not some magical tactical ninja trained at Stopping Bad Guys And Not Dying.

That's why police departments do standoffs.

(* "The police are the people and the people are the police.")

garage mahal said...

Crazy right wing loonies thinking of themselves as responsible for their own safety like actual free citizens--see, that's what gets you killed.

Except in this case the right wing loonies were the ones killing people.

Brando said...

That's incredibly poor taste and says it all about the anti-gun zealots at the Times.

It is a fair point that counting on an armed citizenry to prevent or stop gun violence isn't all it's cracked up to be--a determined shooter is likely to get a number of shots off before anyone can stop them, no matter what, and armed citizens are as likely to accidentally shoot more innocent people as they are to get the original shooter.

That doesn't mean people shouldn't have the right to legally bear arms in public. But saying we can rely on armed citizens to stop killers is no more persuasive than saying increased gun control will do the trick either. Sometimes a determined killer can't be stopped before they commit their crimes, and suggesting that we could have stopped them is just our way of trying to assert control over the situation (and of course to advance our own political beliefs).

Anonymous said...

Not only did Wilcox have to overcome the non-PC stereotype about the harmlessness of women, he had to overcome the non-PC instinctive inhibition against harming women oneself.

You don't have to succeed to be a hero.

The Drill SGT said...

Maybe the NYT should cover the fact that gun violence has spiked in NYC since the police were forbidden to "stop and Frisk"??

The Crack Emcee said...

Like showing up with your own gun ALWAYS works.

Some of you haven't been around enough violence to know how shit goes down.

Oh yeah - you're white - and not segregated into living in enclaves of desperation and poverty.

My bad,...

The Crack Emcee said...

Oh - and that's the NYT's fault.

The Crack Emcee said...

I watched The Hunger games last night.

Perfect prep for this,...

Bruce Hayden said...

And if Wilcox hadn't hesitated, but had shot based on his split-second instinct, he could have been wrong, and then he'd get the George Zimmerman template.

Not sure what you mean by George Zimmerman. That was a fully justified self-defense shooting, that most likely would have resulted in an acquittal in all 50 states (including Ohio where the defendant apparently has to prove SD, instead of the state disproving it beyond a reasonable doubt, as is the case in the other 49).

Defense of others, as would have been the case here, is apparently in some states a bit iffier than true self-defense (which is what the Zimmerman case was). My reading of NV law is that he could legally have shot the male perp, but not the female one, until she pulled her gun and started to shoot an innocent. But, the police probably could shoot her, JIC. Interestingly to me, NV seems to place defending a home above defending non-related 3rd parties. (Related 3rd parties are up there with houses in importance).

R.A. Crankbait said...

A good guy with a gun DID stop the bad guys, even though he died. It's been shown that these mass shooters are acting out a fantasy - a fantasy where they are all powerful. Time after time - such as at Clackamas Mall and New Life Christian Center come to mind - as soon as the shooter faces resistance he retreats and kills himself.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

A good guy did his best to help and was killed. The NYTimes responds disgustingly. Crack chimes in to make things worse, and, surprise, blames the commenter's whiteness (and implies that the good guy's whiteness was responsible for his death). I'd say "new low" but it's sadly just par for the course.

Is this one ugly enough for a comment, @Ann Althouse?

damikesc said...

Hey, I wonder why that LV PD guy quoted didn't shoot the perps before anybody died.

Oh, they weren't there?

Shocking.

And, man, who was it that called Crack's comments to the tee before they were posted?

AJ Lynch said...

I must have missed the evidence these loons were right wing? Or has it been reported they were a hard working couple and had self respect and personal responsibility and did not expect the guvmint to support them?

jr565 said...

"I thought a good guy with a gun was supposed to be able to stop a bad guy with a gun. Isn't that right Mr. LaPierre?"

If he didnt' have a gun and got shot in the stomach what would this author have said.
If i ws faced with the situation of potentially getting shot in the stomach and had a choice of having a gun to defend myself or nothing in my hands but air, I'd take the gun.
Who argued that because I'm a good guy I'll automatically win? Only a retard.

jr565 said...

Crack wrote:
Some of you haven't been around enough violence to know how shit goes down.

Oh yeah - you're white - and not segregated into living in enclaves of desperation and poverty.

My bad,...

Right because no white person lives in poverty and all are living in enclaves completey devoid of violence. What is the caricature of whitey you are operating under.
And oh yeah, segregated into loving in black communities? Many people who are black want to live amongst black folks, and there is no segregation if people are allowed to live elsewhere.
Also, lets not forget the Spike Lee's of the world who get outraged when hipsters (read:white) move into HIS community (read: non white). Or the sharptons who call businesses owned by whites "white interlopers".

traditionalguy said...

NYT precis: The collective owns the right to police protect us and impersonating an officer is illegal.

This mirrors the feminist's attack line on Miss USA who dared to say campus rape is a real problem so young woman need to learn self defense, like her own karate skills.

It seems her evil attitude takes away women's rights to exist in a rape free world.

Reality has no place in the Liberal religion.

jr565 said...

Crack Emcee wrote:
"Like showing up with your own gun ALWAYS works.

Some of you haven't been around enough violence to know how shit goes down."

The NRA would never make the argument that the good guy will always win if they have a gun. That's the straw man argument of the lefty against the NRA trying to devalue the idea that you have a right to defend yourself, and which caricatures the NRA's position.
Of course, anyone with a gun knows that they aren't going to win. they simply argue that if the other guy has a gun you have a better chance defending yourself with a gun then with nothing. And that makes perfect sense.

CatherineM said...

The NY Times - everything to match the narrative that's fit to print.

tmitsss said...

NYT commenters unable to recognize and acknowledge heroism

Original Mike said...

'A top-rated comment over at the NYT: "I thought a good guy with a gun was supposed to be able to stop a bad guy with a gun. Isn't that right Mr. LaPierre?"'

Sometimes he can, sometimes he can't. Is stupidity a requirement for reading the NYT?

CatherineM said...

I am annoyed with the assumption that only cops are qualified to handle a fire arm when there are thousands cases of them shooting to kill or killing civilians in pursuit of an alleged criminal.

The LAPD shooting up a car thought to be Christopher Dorner's, but it was two Latina women, in a different truck make, model and color than Dorners. They all unloaded their weapons. Thankfully all such bad shots the women were not injured.

Michael K said...

"Except in this case the right wing loonies were the ones killing people."

Wow ! garage knows who they voted for !

Anonymous said...

Can we describe what the two killers did as sin?

I'm guessing the New York Times wouldn't go with that, either.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

garage mahal said...
Except in this case the right wing loonies were the ones killing people.


So it's just one right winger killing another one and who cares about that, right buddy? I mean, some people aren't really people if you know what Garage means. Miss those Free Mumia rallies, assclown?

Beneath contempt. Fuck off, Garage.

Mark said...

Given a hostile shooter and the choice to either (a) have a gun or (b) not have a gun, I'll take the gun please. I may still die, but I won't die like livestock.

Freder Frederson said...

Wilcox died, but if the killers had kept going, trying to shoot everyone they could in the store instead of shifting to suicide, and if there had been other armed customers in the store, those others would not have hesitated to shoot.

And if Wilcox hadn't hesitated, but had shot based on his split-second instinct, he could have been wrong, and then he'd get the George Zimmerman template.


Both these assertions are absurd. First of all, they didn't shoot anyone else in the store, even though they apparently could have. Wilcox died because he foolishly believed his concealed handgun was adequate to take down two heavily armed people. This is a perfect example of a concealed handgun causing the death of its owner. If he didn't have a gun, I doubt he would have been stupid enough to confront these two nuts.

As for him getting the Zimmerman treatment. I forgot the part about Trayvon Martin killing two cops and being heavily armed before Zimmerman caught up with him.

holdfast said...

“His death is completely senseless.”

He died trying to do the right thing, trying to be a good citizen. People die in traffic accidents, choking on chicken bones and falling in the shower. Those are truly senseless deaths. I don't think the cop was trying to be a dick - it just came out in an akward way.

Freder Frederson said...

I am annoyed with the assumption that only cops are qualified to handle a fire arm when there are thousands cases of them shooting to kill or killing civilians in pursuit of an alleged criminal.

And I am annoyed by the assumption that because cops make mistakes, the average citizen won't. The logic is absurd on its face.

campy said...

" Is stupidity a requirement for reading the NYT?"

No, it's a result.

Freder Frederson said...

they simply argue that if the other guy has a gun you have a better chance defending yourself with a gun then with nothing. And that makes perfect sense.

Except in this case, where apparently the shooters weren't interested in killing Walmart customers or staff, but only killed Wilcox in self defense.

cubanbob said...

Kudos to Althouse for risking permanent neuronal destruction on our behalf by reading the NYT and giving us a neurologically safe synopsis of the latest daily neurotoxic NYT dump.

Freder Frederson said...

A good guy with a gun DID stop the bad guys, even though he died.

No he didn't. The facts just don't support that. He was killed because he confronted them. He didn't shoot them or stop them (it is unclear whether he fired at all). The woman was apparently wounded in the prior shootout with police. They killed each other when the police closed in.

Sofa King said...

Sometimes he can, sometimes he can't. Is stupidity a requirement for reading the NYT?

Scientists are divided on whether this is a cause or an effect.

Zedediah Grimm said...

How many people in the WalMart are still alive because that guy confronted them and pulled the bad guys attention away from the job at hand? Greater love hath no man ...

Oh and One-Track Crack™ is lying about watching The Hunger Games. I happen to know he doesn't have a satellite hookup or electricity in the cardboard box he lives in. Either that or he was watching from the bushes outside some white people's house.
Be careful Crack. Racist Whitey is just dying to have an excuse to take out some honorable, upstanding black folk. Hiding in their bushes is just giving them what they want.

The Crack Emcee said...

jr565,

"Right because no white person lives in poverty and all are living in enclaves completey devoid of violence. What is the caricature of whitey you are operating under."

No - I'm operating under the one where white conservatives got government handouts, of vast tracts of land, and then denied everyone else the same opportunity - that's the one I'm operating under. The blatant white hypocrisy angle.

The rest of us want to live amongst each other because we don't trust our enslavers.

"And oh yeah, segregated into loving in black communities?"

Yes, it's called Redlining. Where have you been? Oh yeah, living in IgnorantLand.

"Many people who are black want to live amongst black folks, and there is no segregation if people are allowed to live elsewhere."

We want to live amongst each other because we don't trust our enslavers. I always feel so stupid talking to you, because you're so stupid. It almost hurts.

"Also, lets not forget the Spike Lee's of the world who get outraged when hipsters (read:white) move into HIS community (read: non white)."

We want to live amongst each other because we don't trust our enslavers.

"Or the sharptons who call businesses owned by whites 'white interlopers'."

We want to live amongst each other because we don't trust our enslavers.

Keep repeating "white Americans enslaved our own citizens" to yourself until you realize - because of your lame defensiveness and racism - whites still haven't even created a real fucking country yet,...

garage mahal said...

Beneath contempt. Fuck off, Garage.

It's beneath contempt to point out these killers draped the dead bodies with the Tea Party's favorite flag? Or they were filled with loony anti-Obama conspiracy theories?

Sounds like you have misdirected anger.

SJ said...

@Freder:

are you saying that cops aren't good guys?

Or are you saying that they were not the first good guys with guns to happen on the scene?

EDH said...

I wonder if Susan Rice believes citizen Joseph Wilcox served with "honor and distinction" in the front (check-out) lines of Walmart?

bbkingfish said...

From FoxNews.com...

"Gillespie called the death “completely senseless.”"

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/06/08/2-police-officers-shot-in-las-vegas/

When did Fox adopt the NYT "agenda?"

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Freder Frederson said...
This is a perfect example of a concealed handgun causing the death of its owner. If he didn't have a gun, I doubt he would have been stupid enough to confront these two nuts.


Damn, is there anything a concealed handgun can't do? Now it induces lethal stupidity; well diagnosed Freder! This guy was too stupid to live (to deserve to live, maybe?) and that darn gun is what caused the stupidity. Defensive handgun use is for professionals only, anyone else trying to help damn well deserves what they get, loud and clear buddy. Make sure his family knows his death was his fault, Freder!

Birkel said...

I call a stupid-off. Freder and Crack each deserve votes. Each is displaying an amazing ability to stupid. Both have committed a lifetime to stupid and you can see how well they have not-learned their craft.

If Crack loses: racism!
If Freder loses: racism!

HoodlumDoodlum said...

The Crack Emcee said...

We want to live amongst each other...


So you're saying "we want to live amongst each other, quit forcing us to live amongst each other!" then? I keep forgetting to enslave Spike Lee, but, you know, I get so busy sometimes--I'm sure I'll get around to it.

Anonymous said...

Sorry for the screed below, but the hypocrisy displayed by the commenters here is nauseating. In EVERY mass-shooting that has occurred in my lifetime (I'm 31), the pro-gun commenters sally forth IMMEDIATELY on blogs like this and elsewhere to scream "If only one of us had been there, this would have ended the right way," or "If only this had been a state that valued the gun rights of law-abiding citizens, someone with a concealed carry permit would have been able to take out the shooter."

Now we have an actual instance of such a citizen stepping up, pulling out his gun, and...he ended up dead. These particular killers targeted law enforcement but apparently left every-day citizens alone. If this guy had decided to make a run for it, he'd still be alive. I'm sure that given a choice to do it all over again, he'd keep his pistol holstered and make for the door.

The whole "PC" angle, the gender of the person who killed him, ultimately makes no difference; he wasn't as good as he thought he was, and the constant masturbatory fantasies of the pro-gun crowd were proved to be just that, fantasies.

If you think that's nasty hyperbole, read your own comments. How many people here are repeatedly using the term "perp," something they picked up from (fictional) TV cop shows while getting their fix of weekly violence? My father-in-law is a highly-decorated police detective, and he's never used the word once in my hearing, even when discussing cases in great detail. Maybe it's time to retire your fantasy-vocabulary and admit that the thrilling concept of saving the day isn't all it's cracked up to be.

Regardless of what the New York Times is blathering (I'm not a fan), it doesn't change the fact that when someone was present with a gun and ostensibly could have stopped the rampage, it made no difference from all the other shootings. Our hero was killed, and the only reason the shootings ended was because the shooters committed suicide. Why not admit that perhaps this is what makes his death "senseless"? Instead of facing this, you're all busy coming up with reasons why THIS isn't the true test case of "hero citizen with a gun saves the day," and puffing up with indignation over the idiotic verbalizations at the Times.

Today, we have yet ANOTHER shooting at a school, this time in Oregon. Is it really so hard to see that there's a pattern here? Will you continue to clutch your beloved guns when it's your kid getting his head blown off at school, a place where he should be safe?

Why can't the pro-gun crowd find a way to admit that a compromise can be found to keep the 2nd amendment intact without making it possible for every drooling psychopath to be armed? I have no desire to restrict firearm access to sane, law-abiding citizens, but why take marching orders from an organization like the NRA that resists ANY attempt at reasonable restrictions/regulations, including background checks and mental health requirements?

At some point, if these types of shootings get bad enough, there will be a movement to take away ALL guns, and at that point, I'm willing to bet that the pro-gun folks will wish that they'd been willing to find some middle ground. There are plenty of liberals who want to find that middle ground, but if the best you can do is jerk off to your shoot-em-up fantasies and be first in line to denounce anyone who suggests that there's a pattern in all this, you'll find yourself in a place you don't want to be.

David said...

Freder Frederson said...
A good guy with a gun DID stop the bad guys, even though he died.

No he didn't. The facts just don't support that. He was killed because he confronted them. He didn't shoot them or stop them (it is unclear whether he fired at all). The woman was apparently wounded in the prior shootout with police. They killed each other when the police closed in.


Fact is, Freder, you have no idea what happened, because you were not in the heads of the murderers. It is entirely possible, though never provable, that the additional brave opposition stopped them from further killing.

Mark said...

As for him getting the Zimmerman treatment. I forgot the part about Trayvon Martin killing two cops and being heavily armed before Zimmerman caught up with him.

You're ignoring that it was presented as a hypothetical; Wilcox decided NOT to shoot first and ask questions later. (For that matter, Zimmerman made the same decision and nearly got his skull crushed for it.)

If he'd know cops had already been shot, Wilcox probably would have fired first. As is, he did what good guys do and died for it.

This, I think, is only a problem for people who believe there are no good guys. Enough people believe that and we can kiss civilization goodbye.

Michael K said...

"apparently the shooters weren't interested in killing Walmart customers or staff, but only killed Wilcox in self defense."

I'm beginning to wonder if Frederson was there somewhere backing up the crazies. He/she certainly knows a lot about this case. Maybe we should notify the police we have a potential material witness here.

Freder Frederson said...


I'm beginning to wonder if Frederson was there somewhere backing up the crazies. He/she certainly knows a lot about this case. Maybe we should notify the police we have a potential material witness here.

I am capable (apparently unlike you) of reading what happened.

Edward Lunny said...

" A top-rated comment over at the NYT: " Yea, when you've willingly spent your life on your knees, repeatedly wiping your chin ; I don't give a shit what your opinion or position is. You've self identified as a coward whom wouldn't act to protect his family or himself, let alone a stranger. Stop excusing abhorrent behavior with empty platitudes.

" living in enclaves of desperation and poverty. " This is an excuse for turning ones neighborhood into a war zone ? For terrorizing neighbors and family.....rubbish. Perhaps one shouldn't choose desperation and poverty, instead choose to learn, work, prosper and excel.

David said...

The NYT comment thread is amazing. Not a single dissenting voice from the view of the commune.

Todd said...

Laveyfan said:

why take marching orders from an organization like the NRA that resists ANY attempt at reasonable restrictions/regulations, including background checks and mental health requirements?


Gee, could it be because every other single time the left says "be reasonable and compromise" that was just the next starting point for the next "compromise" until there is nothing left to compromise on.

Also, citizens can't legally run background checks, only FFLs can. Mental health is health and protected from disclosure unless reported by medical authorities to government for inclusion in background checks that citizens can't legally perform due to privacy issue and such.

If you really want to talk about compromise, how about changing the law so that citizens can perform background checks for gun transfers (what you want) and removing the background check and tax on silencers so that I can buy them in hardware stores or make them myself (like in Europe)? Or country wide CCW reciprocity (so CCWs are honored in all states regardless of state of issue like drivers licenses)? Now that would be the start of real compromise instead of gun people always giving up stuff while anti-gun people simply take and take.

Ian F. Shield said...

The sheriff's blather that the good guy's death was "senseless" is just P.R. boilerplate that all cops, government/corporate mouthpieces and reporters are trained to parrot on occasions like these. I wouldn't read too much into it.

David said...


Finally the lefty know it alls have the killings they have been looking for. All the others in recent memory were so useless, because the killers were either crazy and politically inert, or crazy and possibly leftists. But now (finally) the lefty bloggers and commenters have the murder they have been looking for. Crazy right wingers!!! Finally all they have been saying has been confirmed. What a glorious fucking day for the commenters at the New York Times.

The Crack Emcee said...

Mark,

"This, I think, is only a problem for people who believe there are no good guys. Enough people believe that and we can kiss civilization goodbye."

Let's see, I count Ann, and Meade, and Me. As for the rest of you:

Pucker Up, Racists,...

HoodlumDoodlum said...

@laveryfan

It'll take some space to detail the many ways you're wrong, so bear with me.

You're largely arguing with a figment of your imagination. No one here is saying that a "good guy with a gun" will always win, or even that they'll always be able to help. That's a movie-inspired view, and if that's what was being argued you'd be right. But no one is saying that. People who support things like concealed carry typically believe that a "good guy with a gun" has a chance to protect themselves and others that a "good guy without a gun" doesn't have. They believe having that chance is important and are willing to take on the responsibility of carrying a weapon in order to have that chance. Dismissing this as " masturbatory fantasies of the pro-gun crowd" is insulting. He tried, he failed, he died. You might not have made the same decision, but he had that choice. If he hadn't tried and those two had gone on to kill more innocent people he would have had to live with that. Your speculation on how he would feel looking back know is invalid since the question isn't what would he do knowing how everyting would turn out (and assuming that his actions in fact had no effect) but rather what would he choose to do given what he knew at the time. I don't think his decision was unreasonable and I regret that it didn't turn out better for him.

Our hero was killed, and the only reason the shootings ended was because the shooters committed suicide.
The gun battle with the police in the Walmart had nothing to do with it? They just suddenly decided to kill themselves? See, in this situation the police are what might be called "good guys with guns" and it really seems like they played a part in ending the threat.

Will you continue to clutch your beloved guns when it's your kid getting his head blown off at school, a place where he should be safe?
An appeal to emotion coupled with a call to abandon one's principles in the face of an unlikely hypothetical. And, a small point, but kids should be safe pretty much everywhere, right?

Why can't the pro-gun crowd find a way to admit that a compromise can be found to keep the 2nd amendment intact without making it possible for every drooling psychopath to be armed?
We have come up with a compromise, that's what our laws now embody. We haven't found a way for those laws to perfectly prevent all bad oucomes (like this one), and maybe you'd like for them to work better (or have new laws of an unspecified nature) but if your standard is perfection then no law will pass (esp. given your desire to find "middle ground" and not confiscate all firearms).

HoodlumDoodlum said...

@lavery fan (continued):

why take marching orders from an organization like the NRA that resists ANY attempt at reasonable restrictions/regulations, including background checks and mental health requirements?
No, just wrong. The NRA doesn't oppose background checks as currently done. The NRA supported the NICS' establishment in the late 90's and is not calling for its elimination today. The NRA strongly opposes registration schemes and does not believe expanding NICS-like checks to private party sales is advisible (nor possible without a registration or pesudo-registration framework), but to assert that the NRA opposes reasonable background checks is wrong. The same is true of mental health restrictions--the NRA does not want felons or the mentally ill to endanger themselve nor others with firearms any more than you do. The NRA takes the rights and responsibiliites of firearm ownership seriously, though, and opposes overly-broad restrictions that could cause relatively minor problems to forever restrict what they see as a fundamental right (ie if you ever see a shrink you can't own a handgun). I don't agree with all the NRA's positions and within their 4.5M membership I'm sure there are many different opinions about these issues, but your characterization is false.

There are plenty of liberals who want to find that middle ground, but if the best you can do is jerk off to your shoot-em-up fantasies and be first in line to denounce anyone who suggests that there's a pattern in all this, you'll find yourself in a place you don't want to be.
Idle threat, and once again you're projecting your fantasy onto others. One irony in all this is that the NYTimes passage Prof Althouse highlighted is somewhat ambiguous and could have been defended as begnin, but you lot couldn't help but illustrate the exact mindset the original post is criticising.

machine said...

"... a neighbor who saw them set off on foot Sunday morning with a red shopping cart carrying weapons and ammunition was not alarmed enough to call police."

Welcome to NRAMERICA!

grackle said...

A top-rated comment over at the NYT: "I thought a good guy with a gun was supposed to be able to stop a bad guy with a gun. Isn't that right Mr. LaPierre?

One should never "brandish" a weapon. Draw it when close enough and fire immediately. My guess, like others in this comment section, is that the police officers and the Wal-mart customer were concentrating on the man and not the woman. Possible fatal mistake.

She was the one who killed all four people – including her boyfriend. There's no way of knowing but I too wonder if the boyfriend was surprised when she killed him.

… when someone was present with a gun and ostensibly could have stopped the rampage, it made no difference from all the other shootings.

Below is a few examples of when having a gun came in handy. I think they qualify to be included in "all … other shootings." Folks need to seek facts before jumping the gun.

http://tinyurl.com/kfne2qe

http://7online.com/79543/

http://tinyurl.com/mzx6emx

http://tinyurl.com/pjwgg24

http://tinyurl.com/m4ffw6k

http://tinyurl.com/82o2zdy

http://tinyurl.com/7k75yzu

http://tinyurl.com/n8n7h3y

Notice that most of them are local news outlets. Gun success stories rarely make it out of the local news. The MSM usually doesn't pick up a shooting story if the shooter was stopped by a citizen with a gun.

Will you continue to clutch your beloved guns when it's your kid getting his head blown off at school, a place where he should be safe?

The schools attract shooters because they are "gun-free zones." Shooter magnets. Yes, I'll keep my guns.

Why can't the pro-gun crowd find a way to admit that a compromise can be found to keep the 2nd amendment intact without making it possible for every drooling psychopath to be armed?

String a few compromises together and pretty soon you have your handy-dandy case law to ban guns altogether. But I'm curious anyway and wonder just what compromise would the commentor favor.

CWJ said...

laveryfan@3:31 wrote -

"Sorry for the screed below,"

Sorry? No you're not.

As far as your substance, there were 75 comments posted as of this writing, only three of which used the word "perp." One was by Alex, 'nuff said, and yours was the third. You need to get a grip.

There are examples of armed citizens stopping murders and attempted murders, even during your limited lifetime. That you are unaware of them, or wish to discount them, while emphasizing this last incident, is your shortcoming not that of others.

Finally, you'll have an easier time convincing others of the reasonableness and sincerity of your proposed "reasonable restrictions/regulations" if you lighten up on the allusions to nausea and masterbation when describing those with differing views.

Just sayin'


SeanF said...

Freder Frederson: This is a perfect example of a concealed handgun causing the death of its owner.

Just like short skirts cause rape.

SeanF said...

Freder Frederson: This is a perfect example of a concealed handgun causing the death of its owner.

Just like short skirts cause rape.

PeterK said...

from reading the local paper's account the CHL owner was unaware of the female perp and assumed the guy was the only perp. also from reading the local article it seems that the female perp came up behind him

i could be wrong.

Sorun said...

Back in the day of concealed carry scaremongering, NPR listeners (aka NYT readers) were told of the inevitable running gun battles over parking spaces at Walmart.

Gun fight + Walmart = "We told you so"

BrianE said...

"Why can't the pro-gun crowd find a way to admit that a compromise can be found to keep the 2nd amendment intact without making it possible for every drooling psychopath to be armed?..."

The solution to that problem is to return to pre-70's before we emptied mental institutions.

I think there is some movement to empower the medical community and families of disturbed persons the authority to institutionalize them before they act on their delusions.

Anonymous said...

Garage wrote;

"It's beneath contempt to point out these killers draped the dead bodies with the Tea Party's favorite flag? Or they were filled with loony anti-Obama conspiracy theories? "

They even put a Nazi symbol on the dead officers.

And yet, when we try and protect ourselves through strategy, training, tactics and equipment, people like I Misplaced My Pants on this very website wish I'd take a bullet.

The fact is, there are dangerous people in the world. Imagine this happening completely differently. Imagine the police getting a tip that this couple was dangerous. Let's say the police thought the tip was solid due to whatever source they got it from. The police get a warrant and go to their home to search through it. The pictures in the paper the next day are of SWAT entering this innocent couples home. An innocent couple that just so happens to have been at Bundy Ranch. That just so happens to keep the Gadsden Flag around. A couple that is against this current administration.

I can hear the commenters on this site now. Yelling and screaming at me to catch a bullet because I'm enforcing the "Criminal Administration" in the white house.

And yet, as I've stated before, we can't tell our side of the story. You'd never know or hear about the intelligence we got on this couple. You'd never get to hear the officers take. All you'd hear is a speech given to reporters by a paid flack of the department who knows nothing. And whatever this couple said to reporters you'd believe at face value.

Maybe take a moment to realize that not all police are bad. Take a moment to realize that while we do support your second amendment right to bear arms, we also think there is a use for law enforcement and SWAT type entries upon serving warrants.

And maybe, just maybe, don't wish for us to catch a bullet.

Mark said...

Laveryfan ... This will turn out much like gay marriage, where conservatives are reeling and not understanding how their arguments turned culture against them and that their marriage amendments triggered the very future they fought so hard to stop.

jr565 said...

Freder wrote:

No he didn't. The facts just don't support that. He was killed because he confronted them. He didn't shoot them or stop them (it is unclear whether he fired at all). The woman was apparently wounded in the prior shootout with

So, she was wounded in a shootout With police. Sounds like guns in the hands of people trying to stop people intent on commiting a rampage often works.
If a cop was killed before he could get a shot off would you argue that cops having guns is meaningless because this cop lost his life?

Hyphenated American said...

Crack is making funny jokes again.... Unintentionally...

"We want to live amongst each other because we don't trust our enslavers. I always feel so stupid talking to you, because you're so stupid. It almost hurts."

People who enslaved you (btw, were you really a slave?) were black in Africa. Don't you know history at all?

broomhandle said...

"Why can't the pro-gun crowd find a way to admit that a compromise can be found to keep the 2nd amendment intact without making it possible for every drooling psychopath to be armed? I have no desire to restrict firearm access to sane, law-abiding citizens, but why take marching orders from an organization like the NRA that resists ANY attempt at reasonable restrictions/regulations, including background checks and mental health requirements?"

Except there are mental health requirements and background checks. Now, because clearly you're familiar with the shortcomings of these, explain to me exactly how you would not infringe on the rights of the sane and law-abiding while you stop the slobbering psychopaths from arming themselves.

Hyphenated American said...

"Why can't the pro-gun crowd find a way to admit that a compromise can be found to keep the 2nd amendment intact without making it possible for every drooling psychopath to be armed? I have no desire to restrict firearm access to sane, law-abiding citizens, but why take marching orders from an organization like the NRA that resists ANY attempt at reasonable restrictions/regulations, including background checks and mental health requirements? "

I agree, but then if drooling psychopaths cannot buy guns, then they should not be allowed to vote either, right?

broomhandle said...

garage,
Where did your Gadsden/Obamacare avatar go, dude?

You're so craven.

Hyphenated American said...

"Keep repeating "white Americans enslaved our own citizens" to yourself until you realize - because of your lame defensiveness and racism - whites still haven't even created a real fucking country yet,..."

This is factually incorrect, they were enslaved by fellow black Africans.

Skookum John said...

@Mark: "Laveryfan ... This will turn out much like gay marriage, where conservatives are reeling and not understanding how their arguments turned culture against them and that their marriage amendments triggered the very future they fought so hard to stop."

I don't think so. The gay marriage proponents won because they were single-issue activists who kept their eyes on the prize, while most everyone else was distracted and apathetic. The NRA is the canonical single-issue lobby, and they get stronger with every attempt to infringe on firearms civil rights.

Balfegor said...

Re: laveryfan:

The whole "PC" angle, the gender of the person who killed him, ultimately makes no difference; he wasn't as good as he thought he was, and the constant masturbatory fantasies of the pro-gun crowd were proved to be just that, fantasies.

Not sure how you reach that conclusion. Plenty of other cases where armed civilians (or off-duty officers using their personal firearms) appear to have prevented mass violence. This incident could demonstrate that armed citizenry won't prevent 100% of massacres (which would be an absurd proposition). But it doesn't demonstrate the inefficacy of an armed citizenry the way you seem to think it does.

The Crack Emcee said...

I don't talk to Hyphenated Americans,...

HoodlumDoodlum said...

garage mahal said...It's beneath contempt to point out these killers draped the dead bodies with the Tea Party's favorite flag? Or they were filled with loony anti-Obama conspiracy theories?

Oh geez, my mistake, I thought your main reaction to this article was to point to the part that's being used to call the killers "right wing" and give a Nelson-from-the-Simpsons "Ha Ha!" I thought you actually had a (despicable) point, that you were using this as evidence for your prior assertions/mood affiliations, that you intended to imply something about a larger group. I didn't realize you were just making a random, unconnected observation and wasting everyone's time.

Are you an Crack competing to see who can best live up to the insult given in Billy Madison, about everyone being made dumber just by listening to you? It's neck and neck, man.

jr565 said...

Crack Emcee wrote:
"And oh yeah, segregated into loving in black communities?"

Yes, it's called Redlining. Where have you been? Oh yeah, living in IgnorantLand.

"Many people who are black want to live amongst black folks, and there is no segregation if people are allowed to live elsewhere."

We want to live amongst each other because we don't trust our enslavers. I always feel so stupid talking to you, because you're so stupid. It almost hurts.


So, youre faulting whites for redlining but also say blacks don't want to live with whites anyway. So then why fault whites for red lining. Make up your mind. And just as blacks don't trust whites, maybe the whites redlining don't trust blacks. I wouldn't defend redlining, except you seem to be saying blacks don't want to live amongst whites anyways. No skin off my nose. Stay with your kind Crack and keep living under you fallacies of the evil white man.

CWJ said...

Mark@5:15,

So tell us. What strategy would have succeeded stopping "...the very future they fought so hard to stop."? I'm not being facetious. Either you have an answer or it is you being facetious advocating the Bobby Knight response to rape.

jr565 said...

freder f*ckerson wrote:
The whole "PC" angle, the gender of the person who killed him, ultimately makes no difference; he wasn't as good as he thought he was, and the constant masturbatory fantasies of the pro-gun crowd were proved to be just that, fantasies.

Based on a single incident?

So if one cop was killed while chasing a suspect you would argue what, that cops shouldn't have guns?
This is one incident. Shall I produce link after link of people with guns thwarting people who were trying to kill people or them?
Would that then prove that guns always work?

CWJ said...

The Crack Emcee wrote -

"I don't talk to Hyphenated Americans,..."

Now THAT'S funny!

Bruce Hayden said...

Sorry for the screed below, but the hypocrisy displayed by the commenters here is nauseating. In EVERY mass-shooting that has occurred in my lifetime (I'm 31), the pro-gun commenters sally forth IMMEDIATELY on blogs like this and elsewhere to scream "If only one of us had been there, this would have ended the right way," or "If only this had been a state that valued the gun rights of law-abiding citizens, someone with a concealed carry permit would have been able to take out the shooter."

My memory is just the opposite - that gun grabbers try to use any and every mass shooting as an excuse to further restrict the right to keep and bear arms, most often with restrictions that have little, if any, relationship to the shootings. Magazine restrictions are proposed when the perp was using 10 round magazines. "Assault weapons" are to be banned, when the perp was using handguns and/or a shotgun. Background checks for private sales, when the guns were legally bought in stores after the federally mandated check. That sort of thing.

Why can't the pro-gun crowd find a way to admit that a compromise can be found to keep the 2nd amendment intact without making it possible for every drooling psychopath to be armed?

A couple of things. First, the "reasonable" restrictions inevitably proposed are never reasonable to those affected by them. Magazine limits really don't reduce rate of fire, or number of bullets available - even unskilled shooters can change magazines almost as fast as they can shoot a semi-automatic firearm. The problem with "assault weapon" bans is that they are designed to take gun technology back 50 years or so. The features that make those weapons so "scary" are functional, and make the firearms noticeably better than their predecessors. They are more accurate, have less recoil, are more durable, and are often highly modular. Forcing gun owners to utilize pre-1960 technology just to make gun grabbers happy is not a reasonable accommodation.

And, finally, the right to keep and bar arms, and, esp. to do so with semiautomatic firearms similar to those utilized by our military is an enumerated fundamental right under our Constitution. The standard is not whether gun grabbers think that the limitations are reasonable, but rather, whether they actually will further an important, or maybe even a compelling, state interest. Not might, but will. Banning "assault weapons", limiting magazine size, or preventing most, or even many, law abiding citizens from owning and potentially carrying modern firearms fails this test.

damikesc said...

Sorry for the screed below, but the hypocrisy displayed by the commenters here is nauseating. In EVERY mass-shooting that has occurred in my lifetime (I'm 31), the pro-gun commenters sally forth IMMEDIATELY on blogs like this and elsewhere to scream "If only one of us had been there, this would have ended the right way," or "If only this had been a state that valued the gun rights of law-abiding citizens, someone with a concealed carry permit would have been able to take out the shooter."

So no chance is superior to having a fighting chance?

How much of a pathetic sub-human ARE you? What kind of pathetic pile of bones would PREFER to be utterly defenseless?

THIS is Progressivism. Cowardice and being less than a man in the hopes that the government will save you.

Hyphenated American said...

"I don't talk to Hyphenated Americans,... "

Weird, cause you used to talk to me before I pointed out that blacks were enslaved by other blacks and Africa, and sold to America. This made your argument about evil "white supremacy" and about "white guilt" completely nonsensical. You are ignoring me because I disproved your main point, and the reason to hate white people.

Bruce Hayden said...

It does appear that the three people who died at the hands of the two (now dead) perps were all armed. Maybe that is why they died. But, of course, two of them were police officers. I agree that the third person shot should be seen as a hero, more than anything else. He paid the ultimate sacrifice in trying to defend people who he probably did not know. And, there is a distinct possibility that his shooting may have ended the shooting spree prematurely. We will probably never know.

Michael said...

To those on the left who wwnt to conviscate guns I would make this deal. Everyone has one month to turn in their handguns. Theresfter anyone caught with a handgun goes straight to the slammer for ten years. Tough luck if your cousin left the gun in your car or you forgot it or it was planted on you by the evil cops. No jury trials. Ten years.

I somehow dont think that would have the desired outcome.

Alex said...

Listen lefties, you are totally free to try and abolish the 2nd Amendment. Sally forth and use democracy. I double-dog dare ya.

Mark said...

Let's see, I count Ann, and Meade, and Me. As for the rest of you:

Boring, begging suckup. You go girl.

mccullough said...

I remember in 2012 when Crack said he was going to stop commenting here. He's not a man of his word. He doesn't take himself seriously, I don't know why anyone else should.

The Crack Emcee said...

hyphenated American,

"Weird, cause you used to talk to me before I pointed out that blacks were enslaved by other blacks and Africa, and sold to America."

And now you learn your, pathetically patronizing, white African slave history didn't indeed scare me to death, but bored me to tears, and why would I want to keep doing that?

Plus you're a communist, aren't you?



Hyphenated American said...

"And now you learn your, pathetically patronizing, white African slave history didn't indeed scare me to death, but bored me to tears, and why would I want to keep doing that?"

Weird. First of all, it's not really a question whether what I am telling you is "pathetically patronizing", but is it factually accurate. I can see how your own inferiority complex before a white man would make it difficult to deal with the cold facts told by a white man to you, and not the insulting color of his skin. Nevertheless, I will continue to try to wake up a rational human being hiding inside the wretched soul of a black racist.
Secondly, the history I am teaching you is not a "white African slave history", since all the actors, the slavers and the slaves are black. The white people are not yet on the scene.
Thirdly, and most importantly, the fact that the real history of black slavery bores you, while you seek every opportunity to talk about slavery and your hatred of white people points to an obvious conclusion. Your hatred of white people has absolutely, positively nothing to do with slavery, it comes from your personal deficiencies of a human being. Your obvious lack of curiosity about the truth of slavery and its origins speak very loud.

BTW, as I said before, I am Russian Jew, not an American White, you won't shame me so easily. Right now, you are now benefiting from racism and discrimination, at my expense. Don't expect me to forget or forgive this.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Paraphrasing Crack (to Hyphen):

Facts that do not fit my narrative are boring. Unsupported assertions, misguided appeals to emotion, and illogical accustions are important for others to hear ad nauseam no matter what the context and will never be boring.

Rusty said...

eric
The other thing was about wood. This is something else entirely.


For the lefties-not eric.

There are 300 million firearms(that we know about) in the hands of 100 million legal firearm owners(that we know about)
Now tell me. Just what the fuck are you going to do.