Archive for the 'Firearms' Category

Outdoor Life:

There’s nothing new about the quest for a good bear-country sidearm, and what we’re carrying is evolving. Giant revolvers, though still popular, are somewhat antiquated. The Glock 20 is rapidly becoming the preferred arm of choice, and for good reason. It is more streamlined, more shootable, and it carries more ammo than a revolver, yet it is still dependable and powerful. My pal Andrew Brady of Lone Star Armory showed me a few tricks to improve a stock Glock.

Replace the Sights

Chances are an encounter with a bear that requires using a pistol will happen very fast. You may not even have time to aim, but any edge you can give yourself helps. XS Sight Systems makes by far the fastest-acquiring sights that I have used. In particular, I recommend its Big Dot express sights ($125).

Swap the Barrel and Recoil Assembly

A quality aftermarket barrel ($140) will increase accuracy. The new barrel, along with a guide rod and recoil spring ($40), can be easily swapped out while your pistol is field stripped.

Modify the Grip

The grip angle on Glocks is a big turnoff to some shooters. Their relatively “steep” angle gives a shooter the feeling of awkwardly having to point the pistol down, compared to a 1911, in order to level the sights. We outlined the steps to change the grip angle below. Grinding on a new pistol might feel counter­intuitive, but you end up with a better-shooting gun.

It just keeps going on in this article.  I am a fan of the 1911 with its eleven degree grip angle and narrow profile, and I don’t like the feel of the sharp edges of a Glock.  If you don’t want to shoot a 1911 but want a double stack higher capacity magazine, why not choose a Springfield Armory XD or XDm which is modeled in the same fashion of the eleven degree grip angle?

Or why not choose a .357 magnum or .44 magnum revolver?  Why would anyone spend the kind of effort and money necessary to pull this off when you can buy a new gun for the same amount?  I think the gunsmiths at Hyatt Gun Shop would look at you weird if you brought them these plans.

And for the record, a .45 ACP has proven enough to turn a bear away.

Remington filed a motion to withhold certain information concerning its Bushmaster brand of AR-15s, based mainly on the proprietary nature of said information.  For those of us who deal with technical information or trade secrets, this is routine and customary.  It is certainly not out of the ordinary, and the motion could have to do with information Remington wants to keep from being disclosed.  What if they have studied the rifling twist rate to  tweak it to produce a little more stable bullet flight, or studied barrel length to make it effective at longer distances, or whatever.  I don’t know, I’m just making this up as I go because I don’t know what they know after having invested their time and wealth in making a better rifle.  That’s the point, and that’s why Remington wants its information withheld from public disclosure.

Enter the Sandy Hook families again.

The families suing the maker of the AR-15 rifle used by gunman Adam Lanza in the Sandy Hook massacre called a request by Remington Arms to keep company materials secret so that the company keeps its competitive advantage “repugnant,” according to a new filing in the case.

“Remington did not become the country’s leading seller of military weaponry to civilians by accident. It ascended to that position through its calculated marketing and pursuit of profit above all else,” lawyers for the Sandy Hook families wrote in a response objecting to a protective order filed by Remington.

As part of their lawsuit, families of victims have asked Remington to turn over its marketing materials in the belief that they will show that company intentionally marketed its high-powered rifles as “weapons of war” to civilians who had no business owning such guns.

“Plaintiffs lost family members, including children, in the service of that bottom line. Now Remington wants them to do more to protect its profitability,” the motion reads.

So let me translate.  We, the Sandy Hook families, don’t care about your God-given rights to defend yourself and your families the best way you see fit, nor do we care about the fact that in the court of public opinion, we lost and these weapons are entirely legal.

Furthermore, we don’t care that we don’t know what we’re talking about, and that virtually every gun in civilian use has a military application, from shotguns used for room clearing in Now Zad, Afghanistan by the Marines, to Remington 700 bolt action rifles used by Marine snipers in Iraq, nor that virtually every military weapon has a civilian application.

We don’t care about the fact that there isn’t the distinction between the two that we’re claiming, and we don’t care about the fact that weapons truly get tested by the civilian community, who has to spend their own money for the guns and reviews them on blogs and YouTube, rather than the military who has to use what the Pentagon buys for them, nor that vast improvements have been made to military weapon systems by applying civilian-based gun modifications or tactics developed in 3-gun competitions or the gaming community.

Hell, we don’t even care about the fact that there is a federal law against what we’re doing, called the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, and that we’re basically relying on a raving-bitch SJW judge named Barbara Bellis to help us through what would otherwise be dismissed with prejudice.  We don’t care that the weapon used in Sandy Hook was stolen.  No, we don’t care about anything but us.

The real morally reprehensible actions are being taken by the Sandy Hook families, not Remington.  How utterly despicable.

Prior:

Judge Barbara Bellis Says Sandy Hook Families’ Lawsuit Against Remington Goes Forward

Update On Sandy Hook Families’ Lawsuit Of Remington

Discovery In The Sandy Hook Families Versus Remington Case

I’ll let the lawyers weigh in on this one as to the legal ramifications of what this fellow did.  Readers can weight in too, but I wanted to focus on whether this was wise (h/t Uncle).

There is an interesting discussion here about this.  My take is that a mob, or any potential assailant for that matter, can close the gap very quickly.  I don’t fault the man for unholstering his weapon.  Neither do I fault him for walking backwards and very carefully while trying to pay attention to his surroundings.

What I would say though is that if he thought he was under threat, when he was out of range he should have retreated and gotten away.  I would have.  Remember, egress, evasion and escape.  That he came back will probably be a problem with a prosecutor.

I hadn’t thought much about it or researched it, but I stumbled on this Inquisitr article where the weapon used in the Dallas shootings was an SKS, not an AR-15.  The New York Times also mentioned this.  Dean Weingarten writing for Ammoland spent a good deal of time on this.

The rifle used by the Dallas sniper was an antique East Block rifle designed in the 1940’s, an SKS.

The SKS was considered obsolete by the Soviet military in 1956, 60 years ago. 

It is a simple semi-automatic design that does not use detachable magazines and holds 10 rounds of ammunition. It uses the intermediate powered 7.62 x 39 cartridge, about as powerful as the .30-30, a common deer cartridge in the United States for a hundred and twenty years.  From nbcnews.com:

Dallas police said Friday that detectives found bomb making materials, ballistic vests, rifles, ammunition and “a personal journal of combat tactics” in Johnson’s home.

Johnson used a SKS rifle and a handgun in the attack, multiple law enforcement sources told NBC News.

The Dallas Morning News:

When rifle shots rang out in downtown Dallas during Thursday night’s protest, some of the demonstrators were also carrying rifles.

In the ensuing chaos, one of them was labeled a “person of interest” after police released a photo of him carrying an AR-15 rifle. Others were stopped and questioned by police.

It was not immediately clear Saturday whether any of those who were legally armed delayed or hampered the police response to the shooter, Micah Xavier Johnson, 25, of Mesquite. Dallas police did not respond to questions.

But Dallas Mayor Mike Rawlings said: “It’s logical to say that in a shooting situation, open carry can be detrimental to the safety of individuals.”

No Mayor, that’s not logical at all.  How is carry of a gun, concealed or open, a detriment to safety?  Please explain yourself.

Rawlings said Dallas police Chief David Brown told him that people running through the shooting scene with rifles and body armor required officers to track them down and bring them to the police department. Whether that was time that could have been spent trying to find and stop the shooter is something police will have to comment on, Rawlings said.

So let me get this straight.  So you assertion is that if open carry wasn’t legal, the shooter would have shot cops, continued to open carry for all to see, and that would have made it easier to find him, as opposed to say, a concealed carrier shooting, concealing his weapon, and making it harder for the cops to find him?

“There was also the challenge of sorting out witnesses from potential suspects,” Geron said. “Texas is an open carry state, and there were a number of armed demonstrators taking part. There was confusion on the radio about the description of the suspects and whether or not one or more was in custody.”

Okay look, you’re just trying to find someone to blame for this being chaotic rather than clinical, but such things are always chaotic rather than clinical, and open carriers didn’t cause anything or impede any investigation.  If an open carrier had been at the scene he could have helped to handle the situation, but apparently no one was at the scene who had access to weapons (concealed or open).

At least initially the shooter was in a standoff position, and frankly if he had wanted to maintain his effectiveness he would have maintained that standoff position and ensured means of egress.  He chose to engage in CQB and thus he showed himself.  I’ve told you guys time and time again, the most dangerous situation of a sniper’s hide with a “shooter’s rifle,” a scoped bolt action rifle that will shoot  << MOA.

That kind of weapon can be pre-deployed in a sniper’s hide with proper planning.  You’re thinking too small by focusing on guys running around the street and open carriers.  You need to expand your thought framework.

Julia Dahl with CBS News:

On Wednesday evening, police in Falcon Heights, Minn., fatally shot Philando Castile in his car. According to a video filmed by Castile’s girlfriend, Diamond Reynolds, who was sitting beside him when he was shot, Castile informed the officer that he had a firearm.

“He let the officer know that he had a firearm and he was reaching for his wallet and the officer just shot him,” Reynolds tells the camera.

“I told him not to reach for it,” says the officer, whose face is unseen but whose gun is still pointed at the bleeding Castile in the driver’s seat.

“You told him to get his ID, sir,” responds Reynolds.

Minnesota law enforcement have yet to confirm whether Castile did indeed have a permit to carry a firearm, but if he did, he is one of more than 230,000 such licensed gun owners in Minnesota, according to Andrew Rothman of the Minnesota Gun Owners Civil Rights Alliance.

Since 2003, Minnesota has been what is called a “shall issue,” state, which means that county law enforcement must issue a permit to carry a concealed weapon if the applicant meets certain standards. And, Rothman says, 13 years after this expansion of the right to carry, Minnesota police should know how to interact with legally armed citizens.

[ … ]

Bill Johnson, the Executive Director of the National Association of Police Organizations, an advocacy and education organization focused on advancing the interests of law enforcement officers, says that the presence of a gun other than the officer’s in a police-civilian interaction “does ratchet up the stress of the situation.”

Reynolds, who gave an emotional statement outside the Minnesota governor’s mansion Thursday on Facebook Live, says that they were pulled over because of a broken taillight, which she says wasn’t broken.

Reynolds said the officer asked to see Castile’s license, and Castile reached into his back right pocket where he keeps his identification. She said Castile told the officer he was carrying a firearm, and Reynolds said she told the officer he was legally licensed to carry.

That’s when, she said, the officer fired five shots into Castile’s chest. She said the officer told them not to move: “How can you not move when they ask you for your license and registration?”

In a situation like what Reynolds describes, Johnson says that there are multiple ways for an officer to make sure he and the citizen he pulls over are safe once that person has disclosed that he has a firearm.

“Most officers will say, I appreciate you letting me know: here’s what we’ll do,” Johnson said. The officer can then, for example, ask the subject to step out of the car while he secures the firearm until the encounter is finished. He can also ask his partner to secure the firearm while the civilian keeps his or her hands in plain sight.

Oh dear.  It’s going to take some unpacking for this one.  First of all, I sure am glad that with ISIS in the twin cities, we have cops focusing on the right things such as broken tail lights.  We wouldn’t want the inspection process to handle it or anything.  We need to pay cops good money to conduct stops to tell drivers about their tail lights.

Next, there’s just nothing more a peaceable, law abiding citizen can do.  He pulled over, came to a complete stop, rolled the window down, and announced that he had a gun.  He did everything he is expected to do.  And no, silly counsel to call what you have a “firearm” rather than gun or weapon has no bearing on anything at all.

Whether he is black, white or some other race is irrelevant to the issue.  He was exercising his rights, not just rights under the law (which is a covenant for living together), but incorrigible rights granted by God.  In addition to other things like departments possibly hiring the wrong kind of people, police officers are simply being taught the wrong things in the academy and by the example of their superiors.

According to the Supreme Court in Tennesse versus Garner, police can use their weapons only in the same instances I can, i.e., when their lives are in danger.  If I cannot legally do it, then police officers cannot legally do it either.  The fact that they get away with it because prosecutors won’t bring charges doesn’t make it okay.

Continuing, it isn’t okay for an officer to unholster his weapon and point it, showing no muzzle discipline, in the direction of someone who isn’t an immediate and clearly discernible threat.  I cannot legally do that, and it’s called assault with a deadly weapon.  It isn’t okay to assume that when someone is doing what you tell him to, he is really intent on doing you harm.  People cannot read minds, and Mr. Castile had no way of knowing that you thought he was reaching for his weapon.  If you cannot do any better than that as a LEO, then quit your job and go find one you can handle.

It isn’t okay to discharge your weapon in the direction of someone just because you surmise he might be doing something you don’t understand.  And finally, it isn’t okay to take another man’s life for obeying the law.  The notion that the mere presence of a weapon “ratchets up the stress” is ridiculous.  I’m around people with guns all the time.  I’m not stressed out.  I’m careful, but I don’t swing my weapons around and threaten people because that’s unwise, immoral and illegal.  What the cop did was unwise, immoral and illegal.  I don’t care if a jury exonerates him – he is guilty of at least second degree murder in my book, or perhaps manslaughter.

Here’s a note to cops everywhere.  Assume everybody is carrying a firearm.  Take a deep breath.  Be a friend to the person you have stopped.  Stay calm.  If a man pulls his car over, rolls his window down and announces pursuant to the law that he is carrying and agrees to produce his permit, don’t unholster your weapon and kill him.  He hasn’t done anything illegal.  These are basic childlike things that any fifth grader should know.  And don’t tell him to put his hands up.  That’s stupid.  Grow up.  Ask him to put his hands on the steering wheel if you can’t take the stress.  But don’t tell him to produce his license and then shoot him for moving his hands.  That makes you out to be the moron, not him.

The problem, notwithstanding Julia’s lede, isn’t that both cops and civilians have guns.  LEOs and civilians have always had guns, and they always will.  This is nothing new, but what is new is the reaction we see with LEOs.  And this reaction is itself causing problems.  Witness dead LEOs in Dallas from the Black Lives Matter protest.  BLM is quickly becoming a terrorist organization, and just to remind you, none of this has in my mind to do with Michael Brown, a criminal who stole, trespassed, and beat a cop nearly senseless.  Don’t mix these two things if you want to think clearly about the issue.

Our friend Amanda Marcotte at Salon reacted with disdain not at the police, but the NRA.

Right in the midst of a national outrage over  a video of police in Louisiana shooting Alton Sterling while holding him on the ground, yet another video of a police shooting of a black man has come out.

This video, filmed in Falcon Heights, Minnesota, shows a man named Philando Castile writhing in pain with blood splattered all over his car while his girlfriend says that a police officer shot Castile after asking Castile, responding to requests for his license, reached for his wallet. Castile later died of his wounds.

Beyond being yet more videos of senseless violence by police against African-Americans, what these two videos have in common is the police in question excuse their actions by citing the presence of a gun.

In the Minnesota video, the woman tells the camera that Castile informed the office that he had a licensed gun on him before he reached for his wallet. The officer then returns, arguing, “I told him not to reach for it. I told him to get his hand out.”

In the Louisiana video, officers can be heard yelling, “He’s got a gun!”

In both cases, there seems to be no question that the shooting victims were armed. It’s a point that’s already being flogged by conservatives in an effort to excuse these officers.

However, and conservatives should be the first to remember this, guns are legal in this country.

Guns are legal in this country. Louisiana is an open carry state. Minnesota allows concealed carry. Police officers in these states know full well that people have a legal right to carry. They have, according to conservatives themselves, no reason to believe that a man with a gun is a bad guy. Why, he could very well be one of those good guys with a gun, at the ready to stop crime, that we keep hearing about from conservatives

Which brings up a critical question: Where is the gun rights lobby?

Here are two American citizens that were killed while doing what the NRA claims is a constitutional right. Surely this must be a gross injustice in the eyes of the NRA! Surely they will be demanding action, petitioning congressmen, demanding the Department of Justice to step forward and make sure that every American has a right to arm themselves without fear of being gunned down by the police! Right?

Oh Amanda, there’s no reason to be bitchy about this.  The NRA doesn’t usually get involved in individual cases, but they usually do stay more on track for larger legislative actions they can effect (some to my liking, but if it ends in yet another gun control law, I’m always opposed to it).  But if you want conservatives to come to the defense of the man shot in Minnesota, why not use my example?  I am the NRA.  I say the cop did something that was evil, but I don’t think that’s the real issue with your commentary.  I think you’re being disingenuous.  See, you no more believe in Mr. Castile’s rights than you believe in mine.  You’re just using this event as an opportunity to be a SJW, aren’t you?

One final point as I close out and give readers free reign to analyze as appropriate.  If you’re a LEO and you actually touch another man’s gun in the process of a stop, or you have a partner touch his gun, much less unholster it, “secure” it or anything else you think you are doing to it, let me be as clear as I can be.  You … are … an … idiot.  If your procedures have you doing this, then your procedures were written by idiots.  You can tell them I said so and send them this article.

You have no business risking NDs or taking possession of property that isn’t yours, even temporarily, and especially since you don’t know of modifications that may have been made to the firearm that would make it unfamiliar to you.

Don’t do it.  Just say no.  I wouldn’t walk up and presume to take possession of another man’s gun at a range or while in his home.  You have no business doing that either.  It’s weird, creepy, and unsafe.

Herald Tribune:

Lee Williams’ Note: Here’s a great guest column from Arden Tams. Arden served 24 years in the U.S. Army, the last 17 in Special Forces. As a Green Beret, he attended a host of high-speed SF schools, as well as some of the country’s most-prestigious private shooting academies. Arden, who retired as a CW2, deployed overseas 10 times, including multiple tours in Afghanistan. He’s trained Africans, Arabs and Afghans. I know no one with more downrange time. This is his first column.

by Arden Tams 

Now more than ever the gun community is under a microscope from both the anti-gun community and liberal politicians alike.

For too long the gun community has barked loudly about the infringement of our Second Amendment and done nothing about addressing concerns with proper instruction, training and safety.

There is an old analogy that house built on a foundation of sand will eventually collapse. Well, that holds true for initial firearms training too.

Since I retired from the military last year, I have not only witnessed improper training, I have been told by several instructors who are very proficient that many of their colleagues are not competent whatsoever.

Examples we all hear are instructors using starter pistols, or firing one shot down range for concealed carry classes.

This falls on both the instructor and student.

So how do we combat this as a gun community if there is a minimal standard in place set forth by states and the NRA?

We exceed the standards to ensure accidents like this last weekend do not happen.

Gun ownership is not only a right, it is also a privilege and a stewardship …

You can read the rest here.  I too have pressed for greater and more mechanically based training, mastering the mechanics of the weapon and mechanics of the person.  I’ve pressed for learning to field strip your weapon, getting more range time, practicing good trigger and muzzle discipline, having that hard-to-have conversation with your elder parents or grandparents on whether they really need to have a gun since they are being provided for and protected 24-7 (and you’re worried about Alzheimer’s disease, and no, I don’t mean protected by some irresponsible bureaucrat sitting at a desk in the middle of the night answering the phone), knowing where every firearm in your house is and being able to locate it blindfolded, lay your hands on it and say whether there is a round chambered from memory, and continually raising the bar of your own standards.

And he’s right in that folks who act irresponsibly do us no favors.  They only provide more fodder for the anti-gun crowd to trumpet.  But turning to the state to require increased standards in order to prevent the progressives from being able to trumpet our failures isn’t the solution, if that’s what he’s suggesting.

I agree with his sentiment, but saying that gun ownership is both a right and a privilege is simply wrongheaded.  Something that is a right cannot be a privilege.  And while sad, failures of personal gun owner responsibility don’t justify intrusions by the state.  If there are standards to be raised, it’s best left to the individual, the family and the gun owner community to do it.  Intent to exceed legal standards for the purpose of proving ourselves worthy to the collectivists only justifies the very legal standards that shouldn’t be codified in the first place.

David Smalley at Patheos:

I live in Texas. I’m a gun owner. I have a concealed handgun license. I’ve taught my kids how to fire weapons.

I also understand and appreciate our Constitution. I’m fully aware of the 2nd Amendment, and how its authors wanted to prevent government tyranny. Considering what they had gone through, they had every right to demand such a thing.

When an author begins by giving you his bona fides, watch out.  There’s no better way to start an anti-gun rant than to claim that you own guns and truly do, honestly do, sincerely do, understand gun owners.  True to form, he treats us to this.

I know enough about weapons to have a near perfect score on my firing test, to know that the “c” in SR9c stands for “compact” to make the weapon easier to hide; and to know that the AR in AR-15 doesn’t stand for ‘Assault Rifle,’ but ‘Armalite’ after the original company who made the gun.

Am I a gun nut? Maybe. But I like to keep myself skeptical and informed. And that includes realizing when I’m being illogically influenced by my culture, and taking necessary steps to correct it.

You see, one thing that’s more important than situational knowledge, patriotism, tradition, or protection, is common sense.

At this nation’s beginning, it made sense for the citizens to be armed similarly to the government to prevent tyranny.

Today, that’s ridiculous. The very concept is outdated. Some have said to me; the point is for the citizens to be “as armed as well as the government.”

For starters, today, the military has fully automatic M-16s. Citizens can’t buy that. You have to get a tamer version: AR-15.

You can’t have flame throwers, bombs, bazookas, Z10 attack helicopters, bradleys, tanks, fighter jets, nuclear reactors, or a plethora of other secret military weapons you don’t even know exist.

So even today, with the 2nd Amendment in full effect, we don’t have the rights to be “armed as well as our government.”

Secondly, what if you were? I could hand you 50 AR-15s, give you 1000 illegal bombs, steal you a couple of tanks, and smuggle in some bazookas, and even let you fully train 500 of your closest friends.

If the government wants your shit, they’re going to take it.

You still wouldn’t be a match for even a single battalion of the United States Marine Corps. Not to mention the Air Force, Army, Navy, National Guard, Secret Service, FBI, CIA, and Seals.

So stop acting like your little AR-15 is going to stop tyranny.

First of all, he’s assuming that the armed forces wouldn’t frag officers who issued such a command.  But assuming that the entirety of the armed forces participated in whatever operation Smalley is conjuring, if only several hundred thousand armed Americans fought back, it would be a bloodbath.

This argument – and I’ve seen it numerous times – is locked in the mindset of early twentieth century warfare, oblivious to MOUT, CQB, insurgencies, and fourth generation warfare.  A nuclear weapon is of no use when the enemy lives among friend, and friend and foe all look the same.  Ask any veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom how easy it is to ferret out insurgents from among the population or fight insurgents in the shadows.

As for “If the government wants your shit, they’re going to take it,” perhaps so.  But then again, perhaps not.  You see, the mere existence of the argument itself is evidence against the affirmative and in favor of negation.  The government wouldn’t want to ban weapons if they were of no use in destabilizing tyrannical governments.  Hitler wouldn’t have wanted the Jews disarmed if he hadn’t intended to do them harm.  Also consider the role of gun confiscations in the Armenian genocide.  See Dave Kopel, et. al, at National Review, and also Brett Stortroen, Gun Confiscation as a Prelude to the Armenian Genocide.

Finally, those Marines to whom Smalley refers are somebody’s sons.  I recall very distinctly a missionary from the European theater years ago during communist rule (I refuse to give his name or specific location) who gave my church the back story behind the falling of the wall in Germany.  Night after night the crowds began to grow to tear down the wall.  The German army was eventually deployed to shoot the protestors, but remember that the East German army, while working for a communist country, were sons of mothers and fathers in East Germany.

As soon as the army was deployed, grandmothers went to the wall.  “Shoot us,” they yelled.  The sons of German mothers and grandmothers refused to shoot their own family, and the rest is history.  Now recall reader and commenter Fred’s comment on one post.

As for the military; are they still trained on illegal orders? My nephew is in tech school (navy) and I told him before he went in to seek a deep understanding of illegal orders and to make sure they trained him on it. I also told him that if he took his training and turned it on his fellow citizens I would hunt and kill him, this child that I love and helped to raise up. He understood that this is no small matter.

Smalley makes this sound much easier than it will be, that is, if the government ever decides to harm civilians based on their religious viewpoints, gun ownership or some other reason.  But war always sounds easier than it will be, yes?

Hickok45 is a lot more disciplined than I am, but he gives good (but simple) advice on how to keep care for your weapons when not in use, avoiding rust and scratches.

WISTV:

LYMAN, SC (FOX Carolina) – Deputies with Spartanburg County said a man faces multiple attempted murder charges after opening fire outside a nightclub early Sunday morning.

The shooting happened around 3:30 a.m. at Playoffz nightclub on Inman Road in Lyman.

Deputies said 32-year-old Jody Ray Thompson pulled out a gun after getting  into an argument with another man and fired several rounds toward a crowd that had gathered out in front of the club.

“His rounds struck 3 victims, and almost struck a fourth victim, who in self-defense, pulled his own weapon and fired, striking Thompson in the leg,” Lt. Kevin Bobo said.

Bobo said the man who shot Thompson has a valid concealed weapons permit, cooperated with investigators, and won’t be facing any charges.

“Thompson was still on the scene when deputies arrived, but the initial scene was chaotic,” Bobo said. “It wasn’t until victims and witnesses were interviewed, and video from the scene was  reviewed that Thompson was identified as the suspect.”

Thompson was charged four counts of attempted murder, possession of a weapon during the commission of a violent crime, and unlawful carrying of a weapon.

Bobo said none of the victims’ injuries were life threatening.

Thompson is being held at the Spartanburg County Detention Center.

Wait!  What?  This is unpossible.  Concealed carriers are supposed to go all Rambo and shoot everyone up!  We’re supposed to wait for the cops to show up because of all of that super-cool tactical training and uncanny ability to wax perfect in tense situations.

Or not.  See, anti-gun nuts, this is how it happens in thousands of cases.  In the absence of a concealed carrier, dozens might have perished or been injured.  The concealed carrier is free to go.  Spartanburg police are generally fairly good to gun owners and concealed carriers.  The next step in the honoring of rights in South Carolina is legal open carry.

Let’s press for that during the next legislative session.