We are hearing a great deal from certain people who were almost killed, and lost friends and classmates, in a horrific mass murder.  Their reaction has been to stridently demand that millions of law-abiding people who have never hurt them and never would, be deprived of the right to own semiautomatic rifles.  This is not logical.

Look now at a man who went through something very, very similar, and has the scars to prove it.  His reaction is much more logical.  https://www.expressnews.com/news/education/article/Knowing-anything-is-possible-Sutherland-12742469.php.

And let us not forget the armed citizen who used an AR15 to stop the murders that terrible day in Sutherland Springs: http://abcnews.go.com/US/man-shot-chased-texas-church-shooter-emotional-account/story?id=51041388.


  1. Great story. Glad Mr. Colbath is recovering and accommodating his disability. We should all be fortunate enough to have training facilities like this one. My local outdoor range allows most any training exercise but it would be wonderful if we had a way to better simulate confrontational scenarios like those described.

  2. When asked why I train, the follow-up is, inevitably, ” THAT is what the POLICE are for! ” Yeah, sure. Except that a cop isn’t there. Except that mayhem doesn’t wait. Except that people can be killed in less than mere seconds. Except that I may end up like those high schoolers in Florida where the Uniformed Deputy was staying outside the school, apparently waiting for the shooting to stop.
    Self reliance for me. I may fail, but it won’t be because I had no option but to wait to be shot.

  3. Here’s what “The Blaze” had to say about Our President “Caving IN” under the pressure to “Do Something” about School Shootings!


    Justice Department moves to officially ban bump stocks, classifies them as ‘machine guns’

    The Department of Justice submitted regulation on Saturday to officially outlaw bump stocks

    Chris Enloe Weekend Editor, Article Goal Inform

    It looks like bump stocks will now be a thing of the past.

    The Department of Justice on Saturday submitted regulation to formally ban the devices, which modify semi-automatic rifles to fire like a fully-automatic rifle. The devices were used in the Las Vegas massacre last October, which left nearly five dozen dead and more than 800 others injured.

    What happened?

    The DOJ announced Saturday it had submitted its proposed regulation to the Office of Management and Budget, which must approve the regulation before it is enforced, according to Reuters.

    The proposed regulation defines bump stocks as “machine guns” and seeks to have them outlawed under the National Firearms Act and Gun Control Act. If the regulation is approved, bump stocks will be illegal to buy, sell, possess and manufacture.

    The regulation does not need congressional approval and was expected after President Donald Trump directed Attorney General Jeff Sessions to ban the devices last month.

    However, it reverses a 2010 decision by the federal bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives that found bump stocks did not fall under the National Firearm Act’s definition of a “machine gun” and therefore could only be regulated if Congress amended the NFAGCA’s definition of “machine gun.”

    What did Sessions say? He said in a statement:

    President Trump is absolutely committed to ensuring the safety and security of every American and he has directed us to propose a regulation addressing bump stocks. To that end, the Department of Justice has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget a notice of a proposed regulation to clarify that the National Firearms and Gun Control Act defines “machinegun” to include bump stock type devices.

    What happens next?

    As previously stated, the DOJ has sent the regulation to the OBM for review, which must approve it. Meanwhile, the ATF also has to submit “an analysis and evaluate public comments on regulating the devices,” according to The Hill.

    The process to completely outlaw bump stocks will likely take months.

    Source: https://www.theblaze.com/news/2018/03/10/breaking-justice-department-moves-to-officially-ban-bump-stocks-classifies-them-as-machine-guns

  4. Aaaahhhhch… they want us to subscribe to their paper to read the piece on the Gent who is relearning how to shoot with what used to be his weak hand but is now his strong oneGlad he’s taking advantage of the help. It would be too tragic for him to get shot worse again if he could not defend himslf going forward.

  5. An individual’s reaction to a mass-murder event gets filter through their pre-existing ideological world-view. Therefore, how they react does not depend (necessarily) upon the actual event but, rather, upon their subconscious view of it.

    Consider, for example, the reactions of two women to firearms-related mass-murder events. The two women are:

    1) Suzanna Hupp – she survived the Luby’s Cafeteria mass-murder incident in Killeen, TX in 1991. However, both her parents were killed. In addition, a number of other victims were also killed or wounded.

    2) Gabrielle Giffords – She was shot in the head during a mass-murder incident in Tucson. AZ in 2011. A number of other people were also killed or wounded. Ms. Giffords suffered a permanent disability as a result of her head wound.

    Given the similar circumstances, one might expect these two women to react in similar ways to their traumatic events. However, that is incorrect. These two women had totally different reactions because they had totally different pre-existing political world-views.

    Ms. Hupp was a Republican. She later went on to represent the Republican Party in the Texas legislature. Also, prior to the Luby’s mass-murder incident, she already had a concealed-carry permit. Unfortunately, she did not carry her firearm into the restaurant, on that fateful day, due to restrictions in Texas law. We can deduce from these facts that Ms. Hupp was, politically, a conservative (right-wing) and had a pre-existing worldview which views humans as flawed creatures. Therefore, she blamed the human murderer for the crimes committed that day. She did not blame the firearm that he used. She went on to become a powerful advocate for the concealed-carry human rights of American Citizens.

    Ms. Giffords was, at the time of her incident, already a democratic-party Representative in the U.S. House. We can, therefore, deduce that her existing world-view was left-wing. She has a mindset in which humans are innately good and she believes that humans will only do evil under the influence of external environmental or social pressures. Being unable to blame the murderer who shot her in the head, she fell back on the left-wing position of blaming the firearm that he used. It became the scapegoat for his crime. She went on to become a strong advocate for the forcible disarmament of the American people by means of Firearms Prohibition.

    Two woman, similar tragic events, but with 180-degree opposite reactions. Why? As I said, they experienced their events and filtered them through their pre-existing political world-views.

    As they say, “The leopard does not change his (or her) spots”. Not even a traumatic event can make the leopard do so.

    • Quibble: Ms. Hupp did not have a concealed handgun license at the Luby’s murder. It took place in 1991, before the Texas concealed carry bill, SB 60, passed. At that time there was no CHL in Texas. Private carry was simply prohibited, and had been since Reconstruction.

      Rep. Hupp was instrumental in getting the Texas law passed in 1995, so concealed carry started Jan. 1, 1996.

      • @LarryArnold – You are, of course, correct. I knew from Ms. Hupp’s testimony that she did own a handgun but left it locked in her car when she entered the restaurant. Since she already possessed a handgun, I thought that (maybe) she may have already had a permit for it. However, as you point out, that is quite incorrect. Texas law did not issue such permits (at the time) which is one of the things that Ms. Hupp set out to change.

        I assume that Ms. Hupp was not breaking Texas law by having a handgun in her car but would have broke the law by carrying it, on her person, since no permit to do so was even available at the time. I guess that is why she did not have the handgun available when it mattered.

        None of this disputes my main point, however. Simply by owning a handgun and wanting to have it with her, she demonstrates a right-wing view of firearms and of human nature. Leftists (almost without exception) view handguns and so-called “assault weapons” as negative environmental objects that drive innocent humans into committing crimes. In the left-wing world-view they are “only good for killing other people”. A leftist believes in the concept of the “Evil Gun” and most will not own or even touch such firearms. They sometimes react with horror and fear if one is even shown to them.

        So, I stand by my point that Ms. Hupp had a pre-existing right-wing view of mankind. A right-wing individual believes in the “Evil Man” not the “Evil Gun”. With a left-wing individual, it is the reverse. By reverse, I mean that a leftist believes in the “Good Man” and that the problems stem from the “Evil Gun”.

    • I agree that responses to traumatic events are driven by ideological world view but I don’t agree with TN_MAN’s description of right and left wing. If anything, it’s the reverse. The conservative view is that most people learn to do the right thing and the exceptions serve as good examples of the pitfalls of failure to learn. In contrast, the left wing’s view is that people are too stupid to come in out of the rain. They need a government to prohibit going outdoors during inclement weather or, if going out is unavoidable, to wear raincoats. Furthermore, the raincoats must be government approved since they aren’t smart enough to select ones that don’t leak.

      You can see the difference world view makes in the responses of the Sutherland and Parkland survivors. The former recognize that even a conscientious effort by government is incapable of protecting them. Therefore, as competent and self reliant people, they are arranging to protect themselves. The latter see themselves as helpless dependents and demand that government remake the world so that they will never have to defend themselves. To be fair to the kids, they have spent most of their lives in an educational system that demands blind obedience to inflexible rules instead of encouraging the development and exercise of good judgement. Had a couple of Parkland football players done to Nikolas Cruz what the three American passengers on the French train did to an armed terrorist, I would not have been surprised to see an administrator trot out a policy of zero tolerance for fighting.

      • @Kendahl – You are confusing goodness with competence. The left-wing view of mankind is as a “Blank Slate” which is written upon by mankind’s environment. They rather view mankind (in general) as innocent fawns who can be easily swayed in any direction. As tumbleweeds who can be blown about by any wind.

        Their philosophy is that a human who is placed in a benign (i.e. leftist-approved) environment will automatically become a “Good Person”. However, if that human is exposed to negative environmental and social influences (such as one filled with poverty, class division, racism, drug/alcohol addiction, weapon proliferation, etc.), then these negative influences will shape the “weak clay” of human nature into a person who will do evil things.

        Thus, we have the Leftist (Big Government) view of the world versus the right-wing (Small Government) view of the world. Both group believe that there are certain “Core Functions” that are the clear responsibility of Government. Such things as National Defense, Law and Order, National infrastructure, etc. Basically, the tasks directly assigned to the U.S. Government by the Founding Fathers when they wrote the Constitution.

        Leftist, however, believe that Government’s role should expand beyond the basic Constitutional functions. They believe that Government has a duty to eliminate all of the negative environmental influences (that the Left identifies) so as to produce that “benign” environment that will be a utopia for mankind.

        Thus, the Left-Wing view that the U.S. Government should also have power to (1) Administer anti-poverty programs, (2) redistribute income so as to reduce class differences, (3) administer anti-racism programs, and (4) Administer drug/alcohol anti-addiction programs. They also believe, in direct contradiction of the 2nd Amendment, that the Government should have authority to reduce weapon proliferation. Extreme leftists want outright Firearms Prohibition.

        When one views the current size of the U.S. Government and counts up all the governmental programs and departments, not authorized by a strict reading of the Constitution, that work to advance this leftist agenda, one can see the huge influence which left-wing thought has already had here in the U.S.

        So, the view that the leftist see Americans as “to stupid to come out of the rain” is not quite accurate. At least, the leftists do not see themselves in that fashion. Rather, they view the masses as “innocent sheep” who need the strong hand of a paternalistic Government to lead them to the “Green Valleys” of Left-Wing ideology. In this “Green Valley Utopia”, the sheep will graze in peace and contentment under the leftist-Governmental Shepard’s watchful eye.

        The problem with this happy leftist dream is that a certain segment of the “masses” do not want to be sheep. They don’t want to be under the thumb of an all-powerful Government. Not even one with delusions of being paternalistic.

        These people want to be independent and find their own way and live their own life. These people are not leftists. They are often called Conservatives or even right-wing. These Conservatives would like to see the U.S. Government stick just to the duties assigned directly by the Constitution and forget all this crap about turning American into a Left-Wing Utopia.

        Unfortunately, it is not so easy to tell these domineering leftists to “just go to hell”. The Leftists control so much of the media, the education system, the entertainment system, labor, etc. that they don’t feel the need to listen to us “fly-over” people. They are too busy telling us to “just go to hell” and let them build their Utopian dreams! 🙂

  6. If everyone had a logical reaction to these events, there would never be another Democrat elected anywhere. Absolute fact.

  7. “Emotions re NOT a means of cognition” Ayn Rand

    Cognition being the method of thinking/thought -process.

  8. JAK, TN_MAN and LarryArnold,

    This is a very informative discussion, as are all following Mas’s articles.

    When stationed in Texas while on active duty in 1975-79 & 1980-84, several knowledgable Texans informed me that by law or tradition at that time, the only place a Texan could possess a handgun was in their vehicle IF they were crossing a County border. In fact, several pointed out that they should place the loaded handgun in plain sight in the vehicle so it would not be considered to be concealed. I had no way to verify their statements at the time (and I certainly was not going to ask a LEO about it for fear of “Why do you ask?”)

    Current Texas firearms laws verify their statements about the historical laws in Texas. See 2nd paragraph about “a pre-existing provision of 46.15”.

    From Wikipedia:

    Motorists Protection Act

    Gov. Perry also signed H.B. 1815 after passage by the 2007 Legislature, a bill that allows any Texas resident to carry a handgun in the resident’s motor vehicle without a CHL or other permit.[20] The bill revised Chapter 46, Section 2 of the Penal Code to state that it is in fact not “Unlawful Carry of a Weapon”, as defined by the statute, for a person to carry a handgun while in a motor vehicle they own or control, or to carry while heading directly from the person’s home to that car. However, lawful carry while in a vehicle requires these four critical qualifiers: (1) the weapon must not be in plain sight (in Texas law, “plain sight” and “concealed” are mutually exclusive opposing terms);[21] (2) the carrier cannot be involved in criminal activities, other than Class C traffic misdemeanors; (3) the carrier cannot be prohibited by state or federal law from possessing a firearm; and (4) the carrier cannot be a member of a criminal gang.[22][23]

    Previous legislation (H.B. 823) enacted in the 2005 session of the Legislature had modified TPC 46.15 (“Non-Applicability”) to include the “traveller assumption”; a law enforcement officer who encounters a firearm in a vehicle was required to presume that the driver of that vehicle was “travelling” under a pre-existing provision of 46.15, and thus the Unlawful Carry statute did not apply, absent evidence that the person was engaged in criminal activity, a member of a gang, or prohibited from possessing a firearm. However, attorneys and law enforcement officials in several municipalities including DA Chuck Rosenthal of Houston stated that they would continue to prosecute individuals found transporting firearms in their vehicles despite this presumption,[24] leading to the more forceful statement of non-applicability in the 2007 H.B. 1815″


  9. What did Harvey Weinstein do when he was called out for misbehavior? He loudly proclaimed that he was going to take on the NRA. Close, but feminism was more important to banning guns to the oligarchs that control the media.

    But, it seems that the media does believe that hatred of the NRA is more important than exposing bad Obama DOJ initiatives to keep certain young men from getting a criminal record, or exposing incredibly incompetent law enforcement agencies at the local and federal levels, or exposing incompetent school officials, or at exposing cowardly deputies.

    There are some good issues to explore, including many things that really could prevent a repeat, but the media has their narrative of guns in private hands being the ultimate evil, so there they go again.

    Personally, I no longer take a daily paper or subscribe to cable TV. I tend to avoid buying consumer goods that are heavily advertised. Point is, the media would rather starve then give up their fanatical hatred of honest gun owners, so I will help them starve.

  10. Hmm. From out of left field, here i go again. Millions of LAW ABIDING CITIZENS enjoying their freedoms concerning the 2-amendement. The articles listed are appreciated and noted, yet something is missing.

    Millions of law abiding citizens enjoy sport shooting at every level. Today, I shot a IDPA match, and out of the 200+ rounds shot in eight stages, i am left wondering how the hell can someone walk into a facility and just open fire on any thing that moves.

    How can it be, that during the gunfire, no one, anyone or otherwise, will think to BUM-RUSH the mass murderer? Example:Pulse nightclub=50+ killed, hundreds injured. what would have been the tally had those 50+killed, BUM RUSHED him instead of being moving targets, AWAY from him?

    As I prefaced this, “from left field…”

    Stay safe.

    • Larry McClain,

      I agree. In such a terrible tragedy, bum rushing the mass murderer is the best thing defenseless people can do.

      In my mind, I try to put myself in the place of the students during the attack. Now I am a 54-year-old Christian who believes he will go to Heaven when he dies. I have no wife or children to tie me to this earth. When I go to the shooting range, I purposefully do not put my ear protection in until I am getting ready to shoot, because I want to get used to gunfire. I have fired all of my guns without hearing protection, except I can’t bring myself to shoot my short-barreled shotguns without hearing protection. Of course, I could do it with bird shot, but not slugs.

      If someone fires an AR-15 near me at the range, my shoulders twitch if I don’t have my hearing protection on. I can’t help it. Now I imagine being inside a school building, with all those hard surfaces, that creates a very “live” acoustic for sounds to bounce off. An AR-15 fired inside a hard-surfaced building would be thunderously deafening.

      At my age and current mindset, would I be able to bum rush a killer? I hope so. Could I do it in my teens, twenties or thirties? I doubt it. I think I would chicken out and just run as fast as I could in the other direction, probably crying.

      Unlike children in the Middle East, our high school kids are not used to war. They didn’t expect to be in a war zone on Ash Wednesday.

      If I could clearly sneak up on the killer, I might be able to muster the courage. But a killer who is not watching his six is not very skilled.

  11. How about requiring all classroom teachers pass the background check required for gun purchasers as a prerequisite to the job? Surely parents and bureaucrats don’t want adults deemed too dangerous to exercise a guaranteed right to be charged with their children’s education, regardless of whether they choose to exercise that right.

  12. I was half listening the other night and heard some worthy(?) politico blathering on about how important it is to support/respect “the feelings” of those who wish to “feel safe”. Funny, I would have thought that enhancing/providing actual safety would be preferable.

    I’ve noted a few letters to the editor that would suggest that some of the folks on the other side have a seriously unhealthy fear of inanimate objects. They also seem to believe that the sight of those objects can scar one for life. There seems to be a disconnect from reality here that we need to find a way to deal with. I expect desensitization training isn’t going to fly.

  13. Off topic but the quality of discussion here is much better than other places I frequent. This feels like the internet I was used to before it went crazy. Keep it up.

  14. Read in detail the “Why Are We Doing This?” paragraph of the link below to discover the REAL AGENDA of the anti-gun leftist progressives who are involving schoolchildren nationwide in today’s March 14 walkout.

    What they hate and whom they hate (pathologically) become crystal clear!

    Targets of their hatred include: Guns. Gun Owners. “Brutal” police. “Militarized” police. School Resource Police Officers. American foreign policy. America’s ongoing export of “gun violence” to foreign countries.

    P.S. Examine the sentence structure, the word choice, and the style of writing of the paragraph in question. No student at high school level composed this paragraph. No way. This is “agitprop” of the highest order that would bring a smile to Vladimir Lenin’s face.


    • Curtis,

      I knew you were right about the students having help writing that piece even before I read it. I knew communists, or Marxists, or big government lovers were behind it. Then I read the first paragraph, and saw the phrase, “imperialist foreign policy” referring to America’s government. If I’m not mistaken, that was a common criticism communists, or Leftists, used against the United States in the 1950s and 1960s. I’m sure whoever wrote that paragraph is probably two decades older than I am!

  15. I want to tell you about one of my ideas for reforming education. I am a pessimist, and know this won’t happen. However, some people already do the things I will describe, with some success.

    I don’t like classrooms. I believe it is better for a teacher to teach one student at a time. In other words, I believe in tutoring. This is only on the lower levels, because I believe classroom learning can work at the college level.

    Have you heard of any attacks in home schools? Are home schools known for bullying problems?

    I believe children should be taught first by their parents and grandparents. Do they need to be taught something which the parents or grandparents are not qualified to teach? OK, then, hire a tutor. And when that tutor is with the child, a parent will also be present. The student, tutor and parent being together at all times should keep bad things from happening to any one of them.

    If we could close the public schools (government indoctrination centers), then property taxes could be reduced by 66%. If mothers stayed home to teach their kids, that would free up jobs for men. A labor shortage would raise wages. If we stopped all immigration, legal and illegal, and did not allow mothers to work outside the home, then there should be plenty of competition between employers for men and single women to work. Wages would have to be raised to attract workers. When something is rare, it is more precious. Wouldn’t it be great if workers were rare, and precious?

    Hey, I can dream, can’t I?

Comments are closed.