Ignorant ugliness

One of the more disgusting things I saw the Left do after the Dallas protest police shootings last week was gloat over the fact that a concealed carrier did not stop this mass shooting.  Because a regular citizen with CCW did not stop a sniper attack, to them, proves that CCW is ineffective and they responded by relishing that fact over the NRA (of course).  This goes without saying is absolutely disgusting.

Good Guys

Let me be clear on something.

Nobody has said that a CCW permit holder can stop EVERY shooting.  It can’t.

In this case, the shooter was a sniper hiding in a fortified position – he barricaded himself in a room.  US Army guidelines say that it takes a 3:1 ratio to assault a fortified position, three assaulters for every defender.

For snipers, there is no guidelines, but historically the method that works is overwhelming force.  I remember watching an interview in the History Channel of some WWII veteran telling about German snipers.  His convoy was pinned down by a sniper.  They figured out the sniper was in the top of a tree in a stand of trees a few hundred yards away across a field.  One brave soldier got into a M45 quad mount that was in the back of a truck and emptied the entire battery into the stand of trees, knocking them all down.  They figured they got the sniper when the shooting stopped.

In Iraq, counter sniping was done more often with close air support than other snipers.  When pinned down by a sniper in a building, the Army called in to have a JDAM dorpped on the building.

Quite famously, to try and stop the the Finnish sniper Simo Hayha, the Soviet army located the forest he was in and carpet bombed it.  Hayha survived.

The Dallas police understood how dangerous it is to take on a sniper, and send in a robot to deliver a bomb to get the shooter.

Of course the reality of the situation means nothing to Liberals.  They found a way to manipulate a tragedy into a talking point and they are going to run with it.

The overwhelming majority of CCW permit holders are not “Rambo wannabes.”  We don’t get our permits with the dream of getting into gunfights with snipers.  We simply want to be able to defend ourselves if we find ourselves in a situation in which that is the only option.  We do not want the difference between live and death to be at the mercy of a bad guy.

Of course, for me this is only a matter of principle.  So I’m going to leave the final words of this post to a woman who lived this, Suzanna Gratia Hupp, who survived the 1991 Luby’s massacre in Kileen, TX.



7 Replies to “Ignorant ugliness”

  1. Precisely – most people who carry (concealed or openly) are doing so for self-defense, not to play cop or play soldier. If by happenstance an armed citizen was able to engage the sniper (say he was in the same building or something) then yeah, OK, do it. But to go rushing towards him is foolhardy, whether you are an armed citizen or a professional. In the case of the sniper, even the pros had to take cover.

    The left is nothing but disingenuous – they avoid the real issues and latch on to the low-hanging fruit. It’s easy to insult guns and gun owners. Not to easy to take on the real issues of media-fueled racism, PTSD in our veterans, and social issues.


  2. I’ll just leave these quote by other people here:

    Having a gun doesn’t mean you’ll win every time, it just puts you on a level playing field. It’s a classic rhetorical tactic, The Fallacy Of The Perfect Solution: if being armed doesn’t 100% guarantee survival (or in this case, that YOU will stop the bad guy) then it’s pointless to be armed.

    A gun isn’t a guarantee, but it’s at least a decent chance.


    1. Yes. Being armed gives you a fighting chance. If the opposition has a gun, you should probably have one too. I’ll take 30% odds of surviving over 5%.


  3. I especially detest the statement by “Patty Allen” saying that CCW has NEVER stopped a threat. Wow, that has to be news to the millions of people who have used firearms defensively (which includes NOT having to fire a shot) to end criminal behavior.

    Her ignorance is so profound it has sufficient gravity to form a black hole (where her mind must have been sucked to).


  4. Even the police (good guys with guns) with superior force did’t rush in to shoot the ba****d.

    “Candgram for Mongo” anyone?


  5. The rules in an active shooter situation, of which the Dallas attack was, are:
    1. Run
    2. Hide
    3. Fight.

    Those rules apply whether you have a firearm or not.

    First and foremost, make sure you are safe. It is impossible to even assess the situation when you are in the line of fire.

    This is something the anti-gun crowd does not understand. For some reason, they think that because someone is carrying a gun, that means they are not going to try to seek safety first.


  6. I’m sorry, the NRA and Wayne LaPierre did NOT say, “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a CCW-holder with a gun.” They said, “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.”

    “Good guys” includes CCW-ers, but it also includes police, who actually stopped this bad guy with a bomb (but they had guns, so technically they were still “good guys with guns”).

    The opening premise is invalid, and it just goes downhill from there.



Feel free to express your opinions. Trolling, overly cussing and Internet Commandos will not be tolerated .