Skip to content

Folk with guns taking out armed attackers

We’re told this never happens:

A woman in West Virginia fatally shot a man Wednesday night who had begun firing an AR-15-style rifle into a crowd of dozens.

Charleston Police identified the man as 37-year-old Dennis Butler.

Hunh.

33 thoughts on “Folk with guns taking out armed attackers”

  1. The bbc ran with this story for a short while although their coverage did not extend to the mugshot of the AK-15 user.

  2. This does show that American society can adapt to this nonsense. Unarmed Oz would have lots more trouble.

  3. “The perpetrator shot and killed two members of the church before he was fatally shot by Jack Wilson, the head of the church’s armed security department,[3] ending the attack within six seconds”. West Freeway Church of Christ, Texas 2019.

    Now remind me again, how long did it take the Texas thin blue line to:
    1. Get to the school.
    2. Decide, ‘fuck this, he’s got a gun, i’m not paid enough to do this and it isn’t my job to protect people anyway’?
    3. Actually go into the school and shoot him (funny that….. man with gun stopped by man with gun. But we want to take away all the guns…..)

  4. “They were all racist Republicans, good riddance!” said Joe, an old man from Washington, who heard of the shootings on the radio.

  5. @John,

    Yep. Until they discovered that he was black. You can’t tell from the name.

    Isn’t it cultural misappropriation for such animals to assume human names?

  6. Addolff – Pretty shrewd of the Texas police to wait till the gunman used up all his ammo on the children.

  7. Addolf & Steve, according to the press releases/news, the person who killed the attacker, was an off duty cop who was having his hair cut, was phoned by his wife who is a teacher at the school. He then loaned the barbers shotgun, raced to the school, shot the young man and rescued his wife and child/ren.

  8. I haven’t clicked through so I’ll just assume it’s another story from that favourite source of yours, The Guardian. Am I right?

  9. A couple of years ago I was following threads like this and was directed to a whole website detailing verified accounts of shooters being stopped by armed members of the public.

  10. The criminal who died was barred from owning a gun yet had one. He’d been locked up many times, yet was still sent to jail for short periods. The system failed him. The system should’ve kept him locked up and away from society.

  11. Looking at the timeline on Wiki (yeah, I know) I may have been a bit harsh on the Texas plod, but I’m sure if there had been an armed guard(s) on the school premises and decent security (you know, things like exterior cameras and keeping the external doors locked to prevent random nutters from just walking in off the street, things may have turned out differently.

    Outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns and most of these incidents seem to have been carried out by someone with an illegal gun. How do they think that making guns illegal will solve the problem?

  12. This does show that American society can adapt to this nonsense. Unarmed Oz would have lots more trouble.

    Luckily Australia, like the UK, has neither large numbers of firearms in circulation nor psychos shooting people by the dozen on a regular basis.

    More murders in Chicago last year than in the whole of the UK.

  13. The Uvalde shooter spent twelve minutes outside the school, firing at a retirement home across the street. Twelve minutes is surely long enough to lock the doors.

  14. “Allthegoodnamesaretaken
    May 30, 2022 at 7:25 am
    So rarely does this happen is why it makes the news”

    You’re absolutely wrong – every mass shooter was stopped by someone with a gun.

    In addition, the vast majority of defensive gun uses that happen every day never need a shot fired.

  15. “The Uvalde shooter spent twelve minutes outside the school, firing at a retirement home across the street. Twelve minutes is surely long enough to lock the doors.”

    We used to have fire drills at school. I assume American nippers get shooter drills. So, as you imply, wouldn’t that involve locking external and internal doors?

    Put the other way round: school shooter attacks must still be rare enough that both the school and the local rozzers were so under-rehearsed that they perpetrated huge cock-ups.

  16. I went to high school in the suburbs of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (1 ½ hours from Morgantown, West Virginia, to give you an idea). We had an armed police officer in the hallways at all times, plus about five unarmed security guards (mall cops, basically). At the very least, we had one “good guy with a gun” who could also call for backup if need be. I don’t entirely recall our door policy, but pretty sure we had only one or a handful of entry points. There were no metal detectors.

    School shootings can happen anywhere (yes, even in the UK), but we didn’t have any and at least had a minimal line of defense if they did. What we did have during my high school years was about 2 or 3 bomb threats. None of them were substantiated, but all of them were taken seriously. The minute the administration became aware, everyone dropped everything and all students went to a designated location such as the bleachers on the football field. Even when we had two bomb threats on consecutive days, we followed the protocol. One of these were perpetrated by the son of my orchestra teacher. There was no double standard or benefit of the doubt given to that student. He was expelled. I’ve no way of knowing whether the FBI was notified, but it’s likely that any expelled student has something about it on their record.

    This was all just a few years after Columbine. That school shooting was much like Uvalde in that the Jefferson County Police Department was also chastised for waiting around the perimeter instead of going after the gunmen. These rules of engagement that the Texas officers were supposed to follow were not just outlined in the training they completed in recent months, but they have been the standard practice for over 20 years now. It’s the lesson we were supposed to have learned from Columbine.

    Along with mental health issues and broken families (the Texas shooter was without a father, and had a junkie for a mother), it’s important to pay attention to the incentives given to these psychos. They consistently go after soft targets. Schools, churches, supermarkets…any place calling itself a “gun-free zone” or filled predominately with people who don’t carry is a soft target. That’s why they are now far more common than bank robberies. The NYC subway shooter knew there were no police officers and no one with a gun (it is virtually impossible to own a gun legally in New York City; just ask John Stossel or Anthony Cumia; there is actually a pending case before the Supreme Court regarding this very problem), and everyone was trapped in a small, crowded space. He wasn’t going to try shooting up Grand Central Terminal or the UN building, which are surrounded by para-military personnel with rifles and tactical gear. Apparently, those guns stop bad guys with guns.

    Aside from soft targets, add to that society’s anti-police sentiment, bail reform, race-based double standards, watered down sentencing, next-day prison releases and decriminalization of…crimes, and any violent monster would be an idiot not to act on their impulses.

    Imagine the government telling you, “You’re a victim of society, so we’ll give you a lot more leeway if you commit a violent crime, and by the way we made sure all the people who ‘did this to you’ are completely unarmed. I mean, don’t do it, but you’ll probably spend a few years in prison at the most, where you’ll receive free meals and housing and even college-level courses on criminal justice (i.e., how to make life easier for criminals). And we’re also telling employers to stop discriminating against people with criminal histories when hiring. Again, please don’t do it.”

    As for how “rare” it is to see self-defense with a firearm, ask any convenience store owner. Even easier, just go on YouTube. There are entire compilations full of this footage. Many times, just the realization that a store clerk has a gun causes a thug to turn around and bolt out of there.

  17. Fun fact: In the U.S., we had an “assault weapons ban” from 1994 to 2004. In which year did the Columbine shooting occur?

    New York State currently has among the strictest gun laws in the country. In which state is Buffalo?

    It’s also quite interesting to compare which firearms are considered “assault weapons” and which aren’t. The exact same rifle can legally become an assault weapon if you attach a piece of metal to it and paint it all black. The term is meaningless.

  18. @aoierjaoiejr – “School shootings can happen anywhere (yes, even in the UK),”

    True, but hugely misleading. On 13 March 1996, Thomas Hamilton shot dead sizteen pupils at Dunblane Primary School and one teacher. As a result, handguns were effectively banned in the UK. There has not been a school shooting since. That’s one in 26 years. The USA has a vastly higher rate. And lots of incidents every year where children get shot at school in accidents.

    “They consistently go after soft targets.”

    Then explain why school shootings are more common in Texas, where guns are very common, than in New York where you claim “it is virtually impossible to own a gun legally in New York City”.

    “…watered down sentencing…”

    You are totally deluded. The USA is uniquely vicious in its sentencing, retaining the death penalty, sentencing people to ridiculously long terms, and having grossly unjust sentencing features (such as plea bargaining and “three strikes” type considerations). Compare with the famously lenient Norway where in 2011 Anders Breivik detonated a bomb, killing 8, and then went to a teenagers’ summer camp and killed another 67. In addition many were injured. His sentence was imprisonment for 21 years. As with the UK, mass shooting is virtually unknown in Norway. Lenient treatment of offenders cannot possibly be a cause of mass shootings.

    “New York State currently has among the strictest gun laws in the country”

    But only to the extent that it implements some totally inadequate gun control rather than even less.

  19. Some common myths and excuses I often hear regarding the U.S. and guns…

    We don’t have this issue in the UK/Australia/New Zealand *sticks nose in the air*

    You also have absolutely no leverage against your government. Five years ago, the idea that the government could essentially force you to receive a vaccine was the stuff of conspiracy theorists. Now, Australians are beaten into submission by their own law enforcement. Because they know the citizenry can’t do shit about it. What else do you think your government can get away with once they learn that fact? Maybe it only takes one leftist PM who doesn’t care about international sanctions for the citizens to understand why the right to bear arms matters.

    Reducing the circulation of guns reduces the occurrence of shootings

    How many stabbings and acid attacks occur in your city/country? How many no-go areas are there where you live? How much of a chance do you have of surviving in such a situation without a firearm? How sure are you that absolutely zero criminals own a firearm where you live? If you are a woman, or simply an out-of-shape bloke, how confident are you in defending yourself against an unarmed man who is 6’5 and boxes in his spare time? American gun owners often refer to firearms as “the great equalizer,” because they allow innocent people to defend themselves against the otherwise unbeatable.

    We have police officers/other forms of law enforcement to kill violent criminals

    How far away is your nearest police precinct? American gun owners have a popular adage: “When seconds count, the police are minutes away.” And even when the police get to you, how certain are you that they’ll put your life before theirs? Just look at what happened at Columbine, Stoneman-Douglas, Uvalde, etc.

    Also, if you live in a major city, it’s likely that your neighbors and council members have advocated for abolishing/defunding the police. They may be severely understaffed as a result, or face strict regulations on how effectively they can engage a perpetrator. Many cities even prohibit their police departments from putting someone in a headlock to subdue them.

    What makes you think your little AR-15 is any match against the government and its military?

    Somehow, a ragtag team of cousin-fucking jihadists was able to defeat the U.S. military in Afghanistan, and even make it out of the battle with a surplus arsenal of our guns, ammunition and helicopters. A team of 19 Uvalde police officers (i.e., the government) was too afraid to take on one 18-year-old with a gun. The entire reason the U.S. exists is because second-class colonists defeated Great Britain, one of the world superpowers at the time. You don’t have to wipe out an entire country to win a war, only tire out its government by becoming a formidable opponent.

    Not sure if it was on this blog or Quora or somewhere else, but someone mentioned that most governments will avoid carpet-bombing their own citizens, even if there is no concern for human life, because it would end up destroying the surrounding valuable resources as well. If the government is trying to target specific citizens, it will likely rely on ground troops with guns. A nuclear bomb or tank cannot go door to door in a community. With dictators like Assad in Syria, he is not acting alone. He is being funded by countries like Iran and helped by Russia militarily, making this more than a civil war. In any event, the government will not be defending its own citizens, and it is up to the rebels to either build up their numbers and fight, or surrender.

    Can you at least ban high-capacity assault rifles?

    First, please define “high-capacity assault rifle.” Most legislators who try to ban such firearms are unable to do just that, which is why the definition may even vary from state to state. And what makes one form of firearm any different from another? Bullets are bullets. Any gun, whether a pistol or an AR-15, only shoots one bullet at a time. Machine guns have been banned from civilian use since 1986 in the U.S.

    Joe Biden himself, when attempting to advise on self-defense, told a citizen to “use a double-barrel shotgun” instead of a semi-automatic rifle. He said to “fire two blasts in the air” to scare away a violent criminal. First off, even the NRA will tell you it is extremely dangerous and reckless to fire “warning shots,” as what goes up must come down, and you can inadvertently kill innocent people with falling bullets. Second, it is a well-known safety rule that you do not even brandish a weapon unless and until you intend to use it. That whole business of flashing a gun in your waistband is something you only see in movies and in the hood among people with poor gun-handling skills (it’s also poor gun handling to hold a pistol sideways like the rappers do, or to criss-cross like Neo in The Matrix). Secondly, not sure if you’ve ever seen comparisons between damage done by different firearms, but shotguns cause some of the most catastrophic damage possible.

    The Uvalde gunman shot his grandmother in the face likely with one of his semi-automatic rifles before shooting at the elementary school. Obviously, she had some severe injuries including shattered teeth, and may never be able to speak again, but she is still alive and likely to survive. If it had been one of the double-barrel shotguns Biden recommended, it would have looked like JFK when he was shot by Lee Harvey Oswald, probably even worse at such a close range. That is how misinformed politicians and the public are when it comes to banning weapons. They get all of their information from John Wayne movies and Law & Order episodes.

    And, what happens when you have a crowd of AntiFa thugs bashing in your windows, threatening to kill you (because you live next door to someone who posted something they don’t like on Twitter, of course), and you run out of the ten bullets that your government says you need to defend yourself? Sound ridiculous? I live in Manhattan, and the entire borough was at risk because some guy overdosed all the way in Minneapolis. In Seattle, even businesses that put pro-BLM and pro-AntiFa stickers in their windows had everything destroyed and looted. And the police departments in all such cities were told essentially to just sit and watch.

    There would be far less deaths without guns. Why can’t the government just take them away from citizens by force?

    In the U.S., there are just under 400 million firearms owned by citizens. There are literally more guns than people here. The Australian government confiscated 650,000. Bit of a difference. There are also “ghost guns” which would definitely see an increase if the Second Amendment were somehow repealed. Just look at how successful Prohibition and the War on Drugs have been historically.

    The Oklahoma City bombing was the deadliest terrorist attack in U.S. history until the 9/11 attacks. To this day, it is the largest mass killing of U.S. citizens by a domestic terrorist. 168 people were killed, including 19 children, and 680 people were injured. Not one firearm was used in the attack. One citizen acquired fertilizer, various chemicals, containers, tubing, duct tape and a rental truck. Many of these materials were stolen and didn’t even have a paper trail leading to Timothy McVeigh. None of these materials are considered weapons until mixed together and arranged in a particular manner.

    The two deadliest shootings in U.S. history were Las Vegas in 2017 (58 killed) and the Orlando nightclub in 2016 (49 killed). The two deadliest school shootings were Virginia Tech in 2007 (32 killed) and Sandy Hook in 2012 (27 killed). More people than all of those combined were killed in less time, using completely legal materials in Oklahoma City.

    The Founding Fathers weren’t talking about AR-15s. And citizens shouldn’t have the same weaponry as the military

    The most powerful weapon in 1776 was a cannon. American citizens were allowed to own cannons. It’s reasonable to assume that men with the originality to create a representative government, with a bicameral parliament and a system of checks and balances, were smart enough to understand that technology in general would become more advanced after they were dead. They had already considered humanity’s advancement from the Stone Age through the first Industrial Revolution. There was a time before the 20th Century when the U.S. government didn’t have the power over its citizens that it has today. Unfortunately, citizens can grow complacent and forget about their individual responsibilities. Influence from communists overseas and other unsavory characters has also made the concepts of self-governance or even limited government foreign to many Americans and especially other Western nations without a Second Amendment.

    The U.S. is the only country where mass shootings happen

    https://www.maciverinstitute.com/2022/05/debunking-every-major-mass-shooting-myth/

  20. Charles said:
    “mass shooting is virtually unknown in Norway”

    Actually once you compare by population size, Norway had more mass shootings, and more deaths from mass shootings, than the US over a 15 year period. Although only because of the disproportionate effect of Breivik on a relatively small population.

  21. @Charles

    …handguns were effectively banned in the UK. There has not been a school shooting since. That’s one in 26 years. The USA has a vastly higher rate. And lots of incidents every year where children get shot at school in accidents.

    It is not enough to only count school shootings. How much violent crime/murder has been reduced in the UK since the banning? Why does it matter whether it occurred in a school or elsewhere in the community. Children exist in other areas of the country as well, and murder is murder. Not only is it a weak argument to cherry-pick your stats, but it’s playing semantics. Is it somehow better when your citizens are killed via some other method?

    Then explain why school shootings are more common in Texas, where guns are very common, than in New York where you claim “it is virtually impossible to own a gun legally in New York City”.

    You just lied. School shootings are not more common in Texas. You are only counting widely reported shootings, and only those which surpass a certain number of casualties. In large, democrat-run cities, there are shootings that involve one or two victims at a time, and they happen so often that they become white noise. That is why they are only reported on the local news, not nationally or internationally, and then the news anchor moves on to the next human interest story. We have police scanners and crime apps as well, where we see “business as usual” happening all the time in neighborhoods like South Bronx and Bed-Stuy. Why else are there metal detectors in school buildings in the inner city?

    And it is not a “claim” that owning a gun is virtually impossible in NYC. You’ve just boasted your ignorance here.

    You are totally deluded. The USA is uniquely vicious in its sentencing, retaining the death penalty, sentencing people to ridiculously long terms, and having grossly unjust sentencing features (such as plea bargaining and “three strikes” type considerations).

    You realize there’s a difference between what’s written on paper, and what is done in practice, right? Especially within the past 5-10 years, you have absolutely no idea how lenient sentencing has become. New Yorkers/Chicagoans/San Franciscans/Philadelphians/etc. have begun to laugh at some of the news stories we see daily (because what else can you do) about violent offenders being released without bail after 24-48 hours in jail. Even with dozens of previous offenses. Meanwhile, there are people with no criminal history, who are facing years in prison for sitting in Nancy Pelosi’s chair. It’s not an issue of viciousness, but an issue of unequal application. Tends to be more unequal with the leftists in charge.

    A Brit cannot lecture us regarding the death penalty and simultaneously relinquish their right to bear arms. Both are forms of ultimate government power. The difference in the U.S., is that the death penalty is only present in certain states, because the citizens, not the federal government decide whether or not the government is given that power. As with any state laws, citizens can change their mind and have the death penalty repealed if they so wish. Don’t like it? You can just move to a different state. You can still speak English and use the same currency, and still largely enjoy the same American culture.

    “Three strikes” rules also vary from state to state, or from city to city. I’m pretty sure California is one of the states that implement that policy. Of course, in Los Angeles or San Francisco, in practice it tends to be more of a “ten to twenty strikes” policy. In America, you can decide whether to live in a jurisdiction with reasonable or laughable legislation. Isn’t it great that we have 50 states to choose from?

    I don’t think you understand the purpose of plea bargaining. Using the example of the Oklahoma City bombing, Lori Fortier had some prior knowledge of McVeigh’s plans, but failed to inform law enforcement. She was facing prison time (her husband got 12 years), but she received immunity when Michael Fortier agreed to offer testimony. I’d say that’s pretty reasonable, even if not perfect.

    Compare with the famously lenient Norway where in 2011 Anders Breivik detonated a bomb, killing 8, and then went to a teenagers’ summer camp and killed another 67. In addition many were injured. His sentence was imprisonment for 21 years. As with the UK, mass shooting is virtually unknown in Norway. Lenient treatment of offenders cannot possibly be a cause of mass shootings.

    And what’s to stop the next Anders Breivik (or Anders himself, once he’s released) from committing the exact same attack? Either someone with a gun will be monitoring/stopping such people, or there will be absolutely nothing standing in the way of homicidal monsters. The only question is whether citizens will be allowed to defend themselves when seconds count, or if they will give the government a monopoly over that right.

    A common theme in weak arguments is comparing apples and oranges. What is the population of Norway, UK, the U.S.? How many and what kinds of different cultures, socioeconomic classes, political ideologies, languages do each of these countries contain? Are there any substantial issues with the ability of those cultures getting along with each other? What kind of support do violent groups get from their governments? Are there politicians bailing violent offenders out of prison, or pitting one segment of society against the other? You may as well be asking why the U.S. doesn’t use the Euro, since it’s accepted by a dozen other countries.

    But as far as leniency, you clearly haven’t talked to many people from the inner city who’ve spent time in a correctional facility. A common adage is, “I don’t mind going to prison, my friends are in there.” You also don’t understand the kind of societal support convicted felons receive from naive activists over here. If a prison in Arizona so much as makes its inmates wear pink underwear, there’s a media uproar and it’s considered a human rights violation.

    “New York State currently has among the strictest gun laws in the country”

    But only to the extent that it implements some totally inadequate gun control rather than even less.

    Not that you likely even looked at gun laws in New York (judging by your gross misunderstanding of gun laws in New York City; I guess the Supreme Court just made up that court case), but in order to have any further gun control, you are talking about an outright ban of all firearms. In that case, it is no longer gun “control” but gun banning. In which case, maybe that’s why you will never live in a free country. You already have a Royal Family but, by all means, feel free to turn The City into a monarchy as well, just so you can feel more sophisticated than us.

    https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna28857579

    By the way, how much violent crime is covered up or glossed over by the government and media in other countries? Or considered to be a result of “white supremacy” and “toxic masculinity” rather than unvetted immigration and unarmed citizens? Is Ariana Grande still playing Manchester? Any Eagles of Death Metal shows coming up in Paris? Completely unrelated, but just asking.

  22. @Addolff

    +1 There was a simalar occurence in 2021 where concealed carry churh congregation riddled [muslim] shooter with bullets

    On Trump, he’s correct on allow teachers to be armed, flat out wrong on turn schools into prison compounds – consequence: shooter teacher or outsider inside and nobody can escape

    I’ve listened to a lot of Trump 2022 and concluded he’s gone authoritarian and a bit loopy. He should not run in 2024

  23. @Pcar

    In 2019, a gunman entered a Texas church and killed two congregants. An armed congregant then shot and killed the gunman before he could hurt anyone else.

    Michael Bloomberg (a nominal Independent but Democrat policy-wise from New York) reacted to this story by doubling down and saying only law enforcement officers should be allowed to carry. That tells you everything you need to know about the people advocating for more, not less, gun control. They are not compassionate. They care more about ideology than your safety or civil liberties. Or severely ignorant, at best. Obama used the Uvalde shooting to put in his two cents about George Floyd, because the leftist philosophy is “never let a good crisis go to waste.” Victims are poker chips to them, and they’ll raise as many as they can to win an election or look good on a blog. Nothing at all to do with saving lives.

  24. Their Black Lives Matter rioters won’t reach full utility for them until the rest of us are disarmed. Once that happens, the rioters become their enforcers.

  25. @aoierjaoiejr – “How much violent crime/murder has been reduced in the
    UK since the banning?”

    Very little or none because there was very little gun violence before
    so there was not much scope for reduction. However, it may well have
    prevented a large increase.

    “Is it somehow better when your citizens are killed via some other
    method?”

    No. And the USA is in no position to criticise the UK on that point as
    the USA murder rate is far higher than that of the UK (and, indeed,
    that of other developed countries).

    “School shootings are not more common in Texas.”

    I’m sure you can point me to an independent source of actual data. But
    it hardly furthers your case for guns to suggest that there are huge
    numbers of shootings across the USA. By contrast, in 2019 (the last
    year before the pandemic), in England and Wales there were zero deaths
    due to assault by handgun discharge, 2 by long guns, and 8 by other or
    unspecified. That’s 10 in total. Scaling that up by population, the
    USA would have had about 59.

    “And what’s to stop the next Anders Breivik from committing the exact
    same attack?”

    Well, you answer me that. Because, unlike in the USA where mass
    shootings are so routine they don’t even make the news, in other
    countries including Norway they are very rare.

    “unvetted immigration and unarmed citizens”

    This is just right wing bigotry. Germany has accepted very large
    numbers of refugee immigrants and has strict anti-gun laws (including
    banning them for self-defence) and still has a much lower murder rate
    than the USA.

    “Is Ariana Grande still playing Manchester? Any Eagles of Death Metal
    shows coming up in Paris? Completely unrelated, but just asking.”

    Yes, of course they are. Ariana is not currently touring, but on her
    latest tour she played Manchester, and, of course, after her tour was
    bombed in Manchester in 2017, she immediately returned to play in a
    much bigger venue in aid of the victims. Eagles of Death Metal have
    only one upcoming date (Austin, TX) as they have been touring but
    played Paris in April this year.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *