1. Once again the tried and true adage is proven: “The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.”

  2. While I’m all in favor of CCW permits and armed self defense, I find it curious that the concealed-carry Uber driver mentioned in this story had a loaded shotgun in his parked vehicle and used it to stop the bad guy. Not that I object to the good result, but a shotgun in a car is rather a long ways from concealed carry. Must be a lot more to the story.

  3. Hallelujah!!! A victory for our side. Dave Workman’s article is especially well-written. If something similar to this ever happens in New Jersey, I’m sure the story will never be published. In fact, I’m surprised this story got to see the light of day.

  4. What? Not one “mom ” os Bloomberg hack willing to show their face? Pretty much much o noshow against the 80000+ NRA members I guess they have no stomach unless they can be guaranteed to be the biggest bully in the room.

  5. has the “mass murder in progress” protocol changed? it *used to be*…
    cordon off and evacuate. lately, i’ve heard it’s “engage soonest” since
    shooter suicide is the likely outcome of an LEO confrontation.

  6. Mas,
    It must really irk the anti gunners when something like this goes right for the concealed carry folks. Enjoyed your article.

  7. Mas,
    From my perspective, you have one of those few jobs from which no sensible human being would ever retire. And if all the NRA ever accomplished was to keep the anti-gunners from spoiling an otherwise enjoyable event, the annual membership dues would be worth the money. We are fortunate to have both it and you as two of our chief assets.

  8. KiA: Thanks for the catch!

    Roger in NC: That’s why I don’t plan on retiring anytime soon!

    John of Sparta: Yes, it has. Current protocol is to get in there and shut it off as soon as possible. Friday morning I’ll be part of a panel on that very topic.

    Spencer, from what I’m hearing the rescuer’s weapon was a revolver capable of firing .45 handgun and .410 shotgun ammo, which would make it a Smith & Wesson Governor or, given likelihood based on popularity, a Taurus Judge.

  9. A .410 revolver.

    Well, that explains how the perp was shot six times with a “shotgun” and survived. Must have been using bird or buckshot. I believe I would have mine loaded with slugs if I was going to use .410 shells.

  10. I am glad to see I am not the only Spencer around here. This is a fine blog, all us Spencers’ (in fact all readers, regardless of moniker) would be well served to comment from time to time!

    As per shotgun, not or what – In my estimation, it’s a shotgun if this fine Citizen used shot (multiple projectiles in a hull – slugs not included). If it was .45 LC or (in the case of the S&W, last I heard the Taurus was .45 Colt/.410 only) .45 ACP that has been deployed then it was most certainly not shotgun.
    Ah, what is and is not a shotgun must surely be one of the finest firearms related quandaries… Yet I digress.

    A most unfortunate circumstance does seem to have been resolved in the best manner possible, yet again, due to someone whom had the right tool for the job handy and an inability to allow evil to transpire unabated.

    I do have a question myself though, Mas –

    Lately (and frequently from yourself, Sir) I have heard much mention of antis.

    Why so?

    I am curious as I never think of nor mention them myself. If they say something, why acknowledge and repeat it? They have no meaning nor reason. I lend much more attention to the buzzing of flies than any noise an anti may attempt to make, myself.

    Am I missing something?

  11. When I first read about this incident a few days ago, I posted a link on Facebook to the following article under my headline comment, “The reason why you didn’t hear about another mass shooting today, with calls for more gun bans & stricter gun control laws….”

    I have yet to receive a response from any of the anti-gun Facebook followers that I know.

    I plan to repeat this message every time an incident like this occurs to get the word out & I suggest that all of you should do the same.

  12. Any chance there will be brass from CPD attending? One can only hope.

    If I were the security at Columbine some years back … sorry … I would have called it in (as was done) & then entered the school & done what I could asap. Does that make me bad or wrong? It just does not make sense to sit and wait given my limited understanding of human nature.

    Damn glad you do not plan to retire Mas. We need & appreciate you & the many others like you. Keep writing. I will keep reading. Keep leading by example. We will be the better for it.

  13. Spencer B, to ignore an opponent is to become vulnerable to that opponent, the way I see it.

  14. Hey, Spencer B, how about us half-anti’s? Do you just listen to us with one ear? (As the regulars here know, I’m a gun-owning liberal who is in favor of reasonable, constitutional firearms regulation, though we’re going to get a few more Supreme Court cases under out belts before we know what that really means.)

  15. Mas –

    I appreciate your answer Sir. That certainly is an interesting perspective and fine food for thought, thank you.

    Dave (the Liberal, non-Uncle one) –

    Yes Sir, one ear and one ear only! The left ear is used for such listening by its lonesome, naturally.

    I’m kidding. I do not believe there is such a thing as a half-anti. I do believe it is a very dangerous thing when a Government is allowed to dictate the meaning of “reasonable”. When a group of Justices does so (I.E. the Supreme Court) reason may well have half a chance…
    None the less, such arguments and questions are best considered in jurisdictions wherein there is no forthright constitutional guarantee to keep and bear arms.

    I have read some of your prior comments and have been reading this weblog for some time myself prior to commenting (originally sans “B.”. Site brass here may tell who’s who based on the email addresses provided as a requirement of posting). Personally, I do not consider yourself to be any kind of anti in the least.


    I thank you for your contributions here. It surely has brought many unique perspectives to my attention and has become an aspect as much looked forward to as the article content itself. Much appreciated!

  16. The gun grabbers will somehow try to twist this story into a negative!
    Here it is:
    Your Uber Driver Could Be Packing Heat, and You Wouldn’t Know It
    The company lets drivers carry guns. Lyft doesn’t.
    “It’s quite possible the driver saved one or more people’s lives. But it’s also unnerving: Why is he driving around with a shotgun in his car while he’s on the job?”

    Uh, so he could save one or more people’s lives?

  17. The antis will be looking for a tragic firearms story to counter this one, and remove it from the headlines.

    Even though Governors and Judges (the handguns) can fire shotshells, I still think their barrels are slightly rifled to stabilize the .45 Colt ammo.

    When a smoothbore fires a slug, I guess it is a slug gun. Although, historically, smoothbores firing one projectile of lead were called muskets. If the slug gun has rifling for saboted slugs, I guess it is still called a slug gun. I would vote to call it a 12-gauge rifle.

    It’s good to have so many choices, but it can be confusing. I would have loved to go to an American supermarket with a Russian immigrant back during the Cold War. Watch their head spin with the bewildering amount of choices, and then show them grocery stores have a whole aisle devoted to pet food.

  18. TW, Your point is about bird shot or buckshot is interesting. I am seeing a lot of “self-defense” .410 rounds that are several pellets of 000 buckshot. Mas, or anyone else, do you have any knowledge or experience with these loads in revolvers? I’m thinking the 45 LC would be a much better load than a .410 shotshell (except where over-penetration could be an issue).

  19. All this quibbling about what is or is not a shotgun…anyone remember the first rule of a gunfight? Bring a gun. Anything is better than nothing.

    I hope some lessons about stopping active shooters were learned from the Columbine massacre. As I remember, a sheriff’s deputy did initially engage one of the shooters, but at rather long range. After that, not much offensive action on the part of law enforcement took place and a wait and see attitude took over. The front page of my local paper the next day showed a photo of two officers taking cover behind a police car (with the logo, “To Protect and Serve” prominently displayed on the fender) as a student lay face down on the sidewalk in front of them, fully exposed. You would think one of them might have looked up, read the decal on the fender and had the thought to run out and drag the kid back to where they were taking cover. Guess not.

    Later on as everyone dithered and was trying to figure out what to do, an officer entered a classroom where a teacher lay, as it turned out, mortally wounded and told everyone to stay put and left, never to return. The teacher was left to bleed out as his horrified students helplessly stood by.

    As an aside:
    I heard an interview with an Army colonel, a psychologist, who’s job it was to understand such things (and find ways to make killing another human being more acceptable to soldiers. It turns out, surprise! that to a normal person, killing is an unnatural act). His comments were never repeated anywhere again, that I am aware of. He reviewed the crime scene photos and evidence and asserted that one of the punks had a moment of clarity at the end and shot the other one before turning the gun on himself.

    But as to engaging an active shooter, which was not done at Columbine, history is replete with examples of how one motivated individual said, “Enough,” and turned the tide of battle, or even changed the course of history. Horatio at the bridge, Audi Murphy on top of a burning Sherman tank single handedly engaging a company of German soldiers with the tank commander’s machine gun are just two.
    I have always found it disgusting that nobody at Columbine could summon the testicular fortitude to grab an AR or tactical shotgun (against the two punks double barrel guns), step into the breach and put an end to two snot nosed oxygen thieves.

    No, I wasn’t there and I am aware about all the talk about fear of bombs and may have some of this wrong.
    But still…

    If you are one of the good guys (cop or armed citizen) and you are in a situation where you can put a stop to what is or may turn out to be a Very Bad Thing, (especially in it’s very early stages) do you not have a duty to engage and at least try to put a stop to it? Here we are reminded of the gentleman in the Nevada (?) Walmart store who paid with his life for trying to stop an active shooter. He did step up and try and should be remembered as a hero. His sacrifice can be used as an example for many reasons: be prepared, be trained, be aware (living your life in condition orange)…but most of all bring a gun.

  20. Supporting “reasonable, constitutional firearms regulation” is like arguing over just how many seats from the back of the bus are OK for occupation by African-Americans. To the Libs ALL restrictions on the posession and use of firearms are “reasonable common sense” measures. When a “Progressive” political weasel says “I support the 2nd Amendment” what they mean is they realize a total ban won’t fly so they support whatever restrictions they can get away with until The Fuehrer can get another collectivist on board with the Sacred Shysters and reverse Heller. Dave, please stop the act that you are a “half-anti.” You sound just like Chuckie Shumer, Bloomberg, and Shannon Watts.

  21. Even though Governors and Judges (the handguns) can fire shotshells, I still think their barrels are slightly rifled to stabilize the .45 Colt ammo.

    The handgun barrels are definitely rifled to comply with federal law. Any smoothbore firearm barrel under 18″ or on a firearm with an overall length under 26″ is a short-barrel shotgun, and subject to NFA rules.

    AFAIK this is the first Governor/Judge social interaction. I’d love to see a Mas-second-look article.

  22. @ Michael JT

    I recall, back when we first re-opened the U.S. Customs Academy, in Georgetown, D.C., in 1974, a Customs Attorney, Stewart Siedel, taught the laws of Search, Seizure, and Arrest to new Customs Patrol Officer (CPO) Trainees, and one of his examples was of dereliction of duty that involved two armed Federal Agents.

    They were traveling to their assigned work station on, a public conveyance, when another person assaulted, and robbed, the bus driver, and both of these Agents made no effort to stop this crime, nor to arrest, or detain, the violator.

    Later, when this knowledge became public, both of these agents were found to have been derelict in their duty, not to have taken an action to intervene in this crime.

  23. @revjen45 and @Spencer B: Could y’all get together and decide whether I’m an anti or a non-anti. One of you says one thing and one says the other and I’m feeling schizophrenic.

    Revjen45, you do make a point when you say: “When a ‘Progressive’ political weasel says ‘I support the 2nd Amendment’ what they mean is they realize a total ban won’t fly so they support whatever restrictions they can get away with until The Fuehrer can get another collectivist on board with the Sacred Shysters and reverse Heller.” The right has, I suspect, given us on the left a considerable education with the current rounds of legislation about abortion: Leave it theoretically constitutional, but legislate limitations on the details of what — at least in theory — can be regulated to the point that as a practical matter the right does not exist or is limited to the point it might as well not exist. Thanks for the suggestion and example, folks.

    I will say that I don’t think Heller is in any more risk of being overturned that is Roe v Wade. Non-lawyers seem to think that the Supremes just do that willy-nilly with the winds of fortune, but that’s not the way it works, especially on major cases about individual human rights and even more especially in the 20th and 21st centuries.

    As for me, personally, I don’t know what I think “reasonable” restrictions, within the bounds of the Constitution, can and should be. I’ve thought about it, but have come to no conclusion.

  24. Michael JT:
    (That is a thumbs up if it does not translate as such in this digital medium).

    Train. Learn. Be as prepared as you can be. Do for others as you would have done for you if able. Who is Able?

    revjen45: Yes. I am amazed at what is considered reasonable. And how more laws are always needed. We will never be able to legislate or control the most dangerous and deadly weapon: the human mind.

    As to smooth bore vs rifling … just goes to how foolish the law are.

  25. Michael Jt,

    You speak with great authority on matters of which you seem to know little. At the time, law enforcement training directed officers to contain and summon a tactical team in situations such as that. Thankfully, that response is no longer being taught, officers are now being trained to enter and stop the threat as quickly as possible. In crisis situations, people will always fall back to their training. It is easy to sit around 15 years later and say how the people there were cowards, but talking big on a computer is just that. As is the case here, when someone does everything right and stops the threat it doesn’t get the news, I wonder how many times in how many cities police officers and armed citizens have stopped threats that, if left unchecked, would have ended in a body count?

  26. If you are one of the good guys (cop or armed citizen) and you are in a situation where you can put a stop to what is or may turn out to be a Very Bad Thing, (especially in it’s very early stages) do you not have a duty to engage and at least try to put a stop to it?

    Armed citizen: Legal duty to intervene, none. Moral duty to intervene is between you and what you believe in.