Guns

Armed Civilian Halts Shooting in Progress Outside South Carolina Bar

|

In discussing guns, mass public shootings, and armed civilians with folk on the new-fangled social networks, I find a widespread belief that it's more or less silly or insane to believe armed civilians will ever be of use in such situations.

Roche Photo/Foter

Such scenarios, like mass public shootings themselves, are rare, but they do happen. When they do, they don't get nearly the national press that a typical mass public shooting gets, for understandable reasons. But they are worth considering in the public debate over whether more guns in civilian hands is a potentially good or bad policy.

One such incident of an armed civilian preventing what might have turned into a mass casualty shooting did happen this weekend in South Carolina, as detailed by local TV station WISTV:

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. 

Jack Hunter, writing about the incident at Rare, details a similar incident in a South Carolina Waffle House last year in which an armed civilian on the scene shot and killed an armed robber.

Eugene Volokh at The Washington Post last October accumulated stories of 10 such incidents publicized at least enough for him to know about them. They do happen.

Advertisement

NEXT: Turkey Sucks, Polls Exclude, Gun-Control Rallies Blow, California Gets High

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. If we had Australia-style gun control, it wouldn’t have progressed beyond a fistfight! [/prog]

    I’m sure this will receive the same quantity of breathless media attention as the recent assassination attempt against a presidential candidate.

    1. That’s the thing. The almost non-existent media reports of guns used in self-defense leads your average lefty to say (I’ve heard this) that these good-guy-with-a-gun scenarios almost never happen.

      Ironically, the lack of attention is arguably justified. Somebody killing 4 people with a gun is news. Someone shooting a gunman in the leg and no one dying is not news.

      1. This really is just a case of two hillbillies shooting at each other. We’re just fortunate only flyover rednecks got hurt here.

    2. I love how anti-gun people idealize a world in which no fight ever progresses beyond fistfights. They don’t seem to understand that injuries from a fistfight can easily become fatal, especially if a person’s head is up against a hard surface (like the wall or the ground) and they’re being punched in the face. Or that if someone gets punched, falls down, and hits the back of their head on a ledge in just the right spot, they’re dead.

      Guns are the only thing that can give an edge to those who are physically disadvantaged such as small-framed females, the elderly, and the handicapped. If all guns disappeared tomorrow, we’d be living in a world where the physically strongest person wins every time.

      1. God made man, Sam Colt made them equal.

      2. Especially given that more people are killed each year by shod feet to the head than so-called assault weapons.

        1. That’s why the High Sparrow, Seven rest his soul, had it right. No shoes, no serving of violence. Ban all shoes, even those gay five finger shoes.

      3. If all guns disappeared tomorrow, we’d be living in a world where the physically strongest person wins every time.

        To the degree that they’re capable of anything resembling reflection, progs pine for the good old days when men gathered together on battlefields and got into mass fistfights, then hugged it out before going to the pub. The completely irrational response to standard RKBA arguments (which are the rough equivalent of “jumping off buildings is bad for your health” for anyone raised around guns) was my first inkling that the gun-control crowd was part of a larger cult.

      4. Worldstar!!

    3. Hey man, don’t underestimate these fists!

      It took an 8 nation army with guns to put down the Chinese Boxer Rebellion

  2. Why is this piece being illustrated with a finger puppet?

    1. She is beautiful, and I would… do… things… with her.

      1. Getting affirmative consent the entire time, of course.

        1. Of course… She appears to be armed.

          1. Yeah it’s not her arms in interested in.

      2. The girl ain’t bad either.

        1. Yes, very nice.

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

    Maybe not from Sheriff Bobo there, but he will have a slew of charges to answer from the prosecutors in the twittersphere.

  4. It doesn’t count!

    There wasn’t a mass casualty event and you can’t prove there might have been one. The shooter might have stopped right then anyway.

    And if there was a mass casualty event then he wouldn’t have stopped it. Therefore he would have been useless.

    There’s no way you can prove this guy and his gun had a positive effect.

    In fact all you can prove this guy did was cause an extra casualty which now has to be dealt with by our overtaxed health system. Your “good guy with a gun” made things worse!

    /prog

    1. There wasn’t a mass casualty event and you can’t prove there might have been one.

      Except MiniTrue has redefined the term “mass shooting” to include non-fatal incidents as well. A bullet merely grazing the skin of three or more gangbangers in a bad neighborhood is now considered such an event.

      This bumps the statistics from a few incidents to hundreds every year.

      This incident will be counted, and the aggressor will be counted among the victims since he was shot in the leg.

  5. Statistically, it’s unlikely I’ll ever be charged with a felony, but thank God for the Fifth Amendment, my right to remain silent, my right to an attorney, my right to confront the witnesses against me, my right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment, etc. anyway.

    1. You don’t mind if we take those rights off your hands do you? By your own admission you’re hardly using them.

      1. And I’m unlikely to ever use them, so I might as well not have them, right?

        1. Those rights are inalienable, like my sexy sense of style.

      2. What’s the old saying?

        It’s better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it.

  6. “the man who shot Thompson […] won’t be facing any charges.”

    Surprising and gratifying.

    1. It was South Carolina.

      Now imagine NYC or California.

      1. Both shooters would share a cell.

        1. Bosom Buddies 2: Coming to Fox this fall.

  7. One such incident of an armed civilian preventing what might have turned into a mass casualty shooting . . .

    Don’t minimize it – he *did* stop a ‘mass casualty’ shooting. Play that up for all its worth.

    1. according to the ridiculously watered-down definition of “mass shooting event” used last year, this qualifies.

      The data set i believe initially used “3 or more wounded” as their definition;

      the WaPo article there provides a more flexible view, pointing out “definitions are always arbitrary”, and allows readers to set their own criteria… which is much more fair and transparent way to report these topics; but when that MoJo report first came out late last year, papers had zero problems claiming there was a “Mass shooting every day in 2015” in the headlines, than only later suggesting that maybe that was a tad sensational.

      What you find when you look at the actual details of the incidents are not “increasing numbers of random spree-killers”…. but rather a lot of remarkably similar scenarios

      1. ….which seem to have a very few particular indicators in common….

        1. …details which i’m not surprised that activists would rather bury underneath headline-statistics

        2. GIL,

          You provided links to three block parties (although one was defined as a barbecue) and a “home invasion”.

          Given that many of our fellow readers do not take the time to read sourced material, would you care to explain, in your own words, what you meant?

          1. Note that I posted this before GIL’s 9:59 coment, which I shall read with some interest.

          2. The “mass shootings” report that Mother Jones put out (here) last year was an attempt to claim that the “Spree Killing” sort of events which we’ve seen are becoming more frequent and more violent.

            In their own illustration of their report, they always highlight the most recent “high profile” events and then cite their ever-ballooning figures, suggesting that there’s a growing number of *these type of events*

            e.g.

            “Orlando nightclub massacre
            Excel Industries mass shooting
            Kalamazoo shooting spree
            San Bernardino mass shooting
            Planned Parenthood clinic
            Colorado Springs shooting rampage
            Umpqua Community College shooting
            Chattanooga military recruitment center
            Charleston Church Shooting
            Trestle Trail bridge shooting
            Marysville-Pilchuck High School shooting
            Isla Vista mass murder”

            The ones they choose to highlight being these incidents of “spree killers” killing people at random, for bizarre reasons a la “racism, terrorism, religious fanatics” etc.

            But the actual data in their database belies their narrative = I forget exact #s, but something like 80% of them ‘no one is killed’, and the vast majority are “poor drunk black kids/rednecks who shoot up a party/barbecue/drive-by”

            Basically, common-criminals/gang violence.

            look at raw data for any single year

            1. Basically what i’m highlighting is a mendacious attempt to conflate “very rare incidents” with “very common ones”, and use the latter to create the impression that the former are exploding in number….

              …when all they’re doing is creating a “bigger bucket” to throw all the same stuff into, and pretend that by mere virtue of “number of people wounded” that therefore they must share very-common underlying characteristics.

              1. I read an article a while ago that pointed these facts out as you present them. Can’t find it now, but the jist of it was that the “most mass shooters are white males w/ legal guns” trope was pure fantasy. Using their own inflationary definitions, the majority are actually committed by blacks in gang battles, i.e. the stereotypical drunken bbq shoot out.

                1. Exactly.

                  BTW = because of that very criticism, there’s actually been a complete shift in emphasis in how they presented that argument.

                  The link provided from late last year (here) was the “original” data set – which basically said = “Any shooting w/ more than x people wounded*” was a Mass Shooting.

                  *and if i recall, the wounding need not have happened because of the gun. Merely “wounded in a shooting-event”. If someone shot a chandelier off the ceiling and 8 people were cut with glass? Mass shooting.

                  The point of THAT argument was to claim that “Mass shootings are ballooning in number every year”… and it only looked at 2012-2015 if i recall.

                  The latter link i cited above (here again) seems to be MoJo’s revision – which attempts to simply isolate all the “supercrazy motherfuckers” over the course of the last *35 years*, and then attempt to make generalizations about THAT.

                  Why shift their methodology? Because the former one was so transparently mendacious, and didn’t actually support their ‘story’.

                  So they changed the data set to better support their basic claims. Does the news media take note of this shift in emphasis? Not at all. They run the new headline each time as the wheel is reinvented.

              2. I appreciate your clarifications.

                A side note for our fellow readers: Please understand that my erroneous reference to a “9:59 comment” (as seen above) should have been referencing the “9:53 comment” made by GILMORE?, who is an entirely different individual than myself.

                If he and I have anything in common it is my sense that it is not the use of sock puppets.

    1. Haha, I watched this earlier today. This guy is fine. The problem is that he really didn’t say anything novel in this video. How many times do you have to point out hypocrisy for the hypocrites to see what they are saying? Anarchists who want a dictator! Democrats who think the majority are wrong! Anti-racists who hate white people! Of course, the answer probably lies in the girl who said she she wanted to remain because she didn’t want to lose the NHS.

    1. While you are there, also make sure to visit:

      https://www.reddit.com/r/uwotm8/

      1. Lost it at “retard chamber.”

            1. What the fuck did you just fucking say about me, you little bitch? I’ll have you know that I’ve been named a top commenter on Hit and Run and I’ve been involved in numerous thread discussions with Tulpa, and I have over 30000 confirmed posts. I am trained in memes and I’m the top twerk video poster in the entire Libertarian Party. You are nothing to me but just another commenter. I will fucking reply to you with precision the likes of which has never been seen before on this Earth, mark my fucking words. You think you can get away with saying that shit to me over the Internet? Think again, fucker. As we speak I am contacting my secret network of blowhards across the USA and your IP is being traced right now so you better prepare for the storm, maggot. The storm that wipes out the pathetic little thing you call your life. You’re fucking dead, kid. I can be anywhere, anytime, and I can post in over seven hundred ways, and that’s just with my bare hands. Not only am I extensively trained in internet combat, but I have access to the entire arsenal of the Copypasta Archive and I will use it to its full extent to wipe your miserable ass off the face of the continent, you little shit.

              1. If only you could have known what unholy retribution your little “clever” comment was about to bring down upon you, maybe you would have held your fucking tongue. But you couldn’t, you didn’t, and now you’re paying the price, you goddamn idiot. I will shit fury all over you and you will drown in it. You’re fucking dead, kiddo.

  8. Apparently, a few years ago the DJT wanted to get into the movie business. He convinced himself he could build the yuugest movie studio complex in America. He had his eye on a plot of land in Florida and had a mayoral candidate in his pocket to grease the relevant palms.

    Here is the plan for the proposed complex. Look at it, and guess why this was one dumbest ideas the DJT ever had.

    Article here.

    1. I’ll take “Don’t build sound-stages next to airports” for $500 Alex

      1. bingo

        there was one problem that not even the mighty Trump could get past: noise. It turned out that he wanted to build Trump World Studios on land right next door to the worst neighbor a film studio could have ? the Homestead Air Reserve Base, where military jets constantly were landing and taking off. “I actually said, ‘Can you move the Air Force base?’ ” Trump admitted, laughing. The answer was no, they couldn’t.

        1. Real estate genius!

    2. *one of the*

    3. His idea for a dual-purpose waste treatment plant/hospital also went nowhere.

  9. OMG!!! The woman in the pic is POINTING her gun at me!

    1. Calm down, Jimbo. It’s like those fashion ads. She’s pointing at *everybody*.

  10. This story can’t be true. I saw memes on Facebook that said that a concealed carry holder would only shoot innocent bystanders. Also, a soldier wrote an essay explaining that civilians wouldn’t be able to handle themselves in a firefight, and a soldier wrote it so it has to be true. This has NRA false flag written all over it.

    1. Also, the gun will always be taken and used against you, which is somehow worse than getting shot or stabbed unarmed.

  11. I just found out my wife hasn’t seen Casablanca.

    1. You should be ashamed of yourself for marrying such a monstrous philistine.

      1. I KNOW!

        1. Well, you’ll always have Paris, I guess

        2. Your wife never walked into all of the gin joints in all the towns in all the world. That is probably a good thing.

  12. The suspect has been charged with four counts of attempted murder. He was also charged for unlawfully carrying a weapon and for carrying one while committing a violent crime.

    But… but all those things are illegal!

      1. Being fat is not something to be ashamed of, yet drawing someone fat is something shameful.

        1. And culturally, being fat was a sign of wealth and power to Hawaiians and Polynesian tribal leaders. Disney is using an appropriate body type for a Hawaiian God. Even though his depictions in Hawaiian art trend skinny, if he were an actual historical Polynesian tribal chieftain, he would have been rather large and powerful.

    1. According to Karla Ivanovich, [an] expert on racial depictions and stereotypes in the media ….

      Meh. You know what they say about people named “Karla”.

    2. To be fair, most depictions of that particular God don’t make him fat. Typically Maui is incredibly fit and buff. He’s the guy who lassoed the fucking sun after all.

      But that doesn’t mean making him fat is racist or whatever. It’s just weird. Like if you made a movie about Jesus or Thor or another common religious figure that has never been depicted as fat before and made them fat for no reason whatsoever. Sure, it’s not racist or anti-Semetic to make your portrayal of Jesus obese, it’s just no one’s ever depicted Jesus as a fat guy before, and historically it would be very unlikely for someone in that region and time period to be that fat.

      I think there’s one sane comment in that article that explains it “There’s a very clear difference between saying Maui wouldn’t have looked like that and Maui shouldn’t look like that [which sends the message that] big Polynesians are a disgrace to our ancestors and have no place being seen by young audiences.”

      1. I’d also argue that it’s probably difficult to CGI a stupidly buff guy that is realistic throughout a whole movie, while rounder shapes have to be easier to manipulate and make more realistic.

  13. The SF Chron is doing a forgettable ‘special series’ on the homeless in SF; they are promising to cover all sides of the issue. So I see “Why are so many people homeless in SF?” and think (wish?) that they might be pointing out that the local government pays bums to move to SF. Wrong:

    “You can call it “neoliberalism” or call it something else, but here, as UK Guardian columnist George Monbiot notes, are its main characteristics:
    Neoliberalism sees competition as the defining characteristic of human relations. It redefines citizens as consumers, whose democratic choices are best exercised by buying and selling, a process that rewards merit and punishes inefficiency. It maintains that “the market” delivers benefits that could never be achieved by planning.”
    http://48hills.org/2016/06/27/…..ess-in-sf/

    Yep, it’s those damned libertarians! But he’s right about the benefits.
    I should have checked the by-line first; Redmond is a worn-out lefty seconded from the (properly) defunct socialist Bay Guardian, and I missed the cite to The Guardian in the article.
    While this seems to represent the ‘left’, the Chron has yet to serve up an article regarding moral hazards, the tragedy of the commons and perverse incentives; victimization is much preferred. None of these people are moral agents.

    1. They’re right on the ocean and there’s a huge glut in cargo ship capacity. Rent some ships that are near their end of service (cause they’re going to end up rekt) and move the homeless onto them. Send a supply ship out every week with some medicos on board to treat the inevitable injuries.

      Toss the dead into the sea.

      Problem solved.

      1. An empty Alcatraz is sitting right there, too

        1. Two things: It’s a tourist attraction and it can’t accidentally sink.

          1. *pauses, dry erase marker in hand*

            do those go under Pro or Con?

          2. Put enough homeless on it and it will tip over.

  14. Here is a review of spree killers, comparing stopped by first responders (civilians) and the clean-up crew (cops). Puts paid to the Mother Jones nonsense by showing that the 4 victim limit coincidentally eliminates most civilian-stopped spree killers because they never get to 4 victims before the civilian on the scene stops them.

    1. Terrific, if a little morbid, read.

  15. Alt-text: “Lemme show you my thing that goes up”

  16. Again – the NRA’s “American Rifleman” lists armed citizen’s PWNing criminals at the front of the magazine every month. I’m so shocked that there’s so little coverage elsewhere in the media. But the NRA’s on it. Every. Single. Month.

    And I have yet to see a month with no events reported. So….YMMV, do your own research, but….it’s out there.

    Appreciate Scarecrow & WoodChipper Repair’s link. That one’s excellent.

  17. Armed civilian? You mean like a cop?

  18. As a counterpoint to this article, who’s premise I should say I agree with, there are other instances of gun violence where armed civilians stepped in only to be gunned down themselves. There was an incident in Tyler, TX (where I actually lived at the time) that is somewhat illustrative of the other potential scenario.

    The Tyler Courthouse Shooting

    Basically, the gunman at the courthouse had body armor and got back up after the civilian got him in the back. Keep in mind this doesn’t mean I’m for gun control, it’s merely an interesting story. The local PD ended up sniping the guy on the highway.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.