Attacker opens fire outside American nightclub and is shot by victim with concealed carry permit

Last week an armed gunman opened fire outside an American nightclub. You haven’t read about it in the news because it was not a massacre and because it runs counter to the anti-gun-lobby narrative. Not only was it not a massacre, there was no loss of life at all. Unlike the situation in the Orlando gay nightclub, this nightclub was not a gun-free zone. Because of this, one of the victims was armed. He fired back and hit the attacker. Imagine if the men inside the Orlando nightclub had been allowed to arm themselves. Fifty people would not have died if that had been the case. In fact, the cowardly terrorist may not have even targeted that nightclub if he had known that his victims could shoot back.

On June 12, a Muslim terrorist attacked a gay night club called Pulse in Orlando, Florida, killing 49 and wounding 53 in a three-hour ordeal that was the nation’s most drawn-out mass killing, and the deadliest domestic terror attack since 9/11.

This past Sunday, exactly two weeks to the day after the Pulse attack, there was a mass shooting outside a night club in South Carolina. I’m sure you haven’t heard about it, and for two good reasons. The first reason is that the attempted murderer was unsuccessful in killing any of his victims. The second reason is because the attempted murderer was stopped by a concealed carrier at the club drawing his weapon and putting a bullet into the bad guy.

Thompson is facing four counts of attempted murder…

It probably won’t surprise anyone that Thompson has a criminal record dating back to 2003, and that he’s a felon who has used a gun illegally before.

So many “experts” have opined that armed citizens cannot carry in a bar or night club responsibly, arguing that “guns and alcohol don’t mix.”

You know what? I agree, as that applies as a general rule, even though there are no reports of “wild west” shootouts in states where having a drink while armed is perfectly legal as long as you don’t get drunk.

But just as we have promoted the idea of having a responsible designated driver for groups of friends who go to bars and clubs to imbibe, we should also encourage responsible concealed carry, either from another non-drinking member of the group, or from that same designated driver.

There were an estimated 320 people inside Pulse when the Islamic terrorist launched his attack. Florida has a population estimated at just over 20 million in 2016, with more than 1.4 million concealed carriers, or roughly 1 concealed carry permit holders per 20 people. In other words, there were possibly as many as 16 people with concealed carry permits inside Pulse when the Muslim terrorist launched his attack, but they were all disarmed by Florida law…

Laws that disarm law-abiding citizens create killing zones for the monsters and predators lurking among us. 96.2-percent of all mass murders happen in so-called gun free zones because people who want to cause as much carnage as possible prefer to rampage unopposed.

…The unnamed concealed carrier in Lyman, South Carolina stopped a criminal shooting into a crowd at a club by putting a bullet into him.

That doesn’t serve the narrative proposed by progressive Democrats and their allies in the media…

-bearingarms.com


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 victim’s injuries were life threatening.

-wistv.com

 

bd3e9b7c5d839600ece462e518bdcb73

 


THANK YOU for being a subscriber. Because of you Whaleoil is going from strength to strength. It is a little known fact that Whaleoil subscribers are better in bed, good looking and highly intelligent. Sometimes all at once! Please Click Here Now to subscribe to an ad-free Whaleoil.

  • Seriously?

    hmmm…

    Two men get into an argument. One pulls out a gun and start shooting into the gathered crowd injuring people. He is then shot by a bystander.

    Yes, it is good the bystander was able to do what he did. Better still would have been if neither of them was carrying a concealed gun at the time. In the US, I don’t know they will ever get to the latter so having an armed bystander might be the best they can hope for. Thankfully, we live here not over there.

    • sheppy

      Given that the offender has a history of doing bad things with guns, its likely he would have carried the gun and used it whether the law allowed him to carry or not.
      That’s the problem with the viewpoint of those trying to ban guns, they think that magically all the crims will no longer carry if they are illegal, when in reality it won’t make a lot of difference apart from removing peoples ability to fight back.

      • Seriously?

        I agree, that is why I have reluctantly come to the view that for the US they may well be safer to have more guns. It just seems impossible for them to backtrack to somewhere more sensible than where they are now, and they may be better to push on.

        But that is quite a different story to our situation.

        • Ghost

          I would agree to disagree on our situation, we have in New Zealand a very well written firearms legislation, but it is not perfect and it is also poorly enforced. I say that based on the lack of prosecution of those found with illegal firearms with obviously nefarious intentions.
          Now as a matter of self defence, in the US it is pretty much in most states a given fact that you are legally allowed to defend yourself. In New Zealand, you are not. Yes it is written that you can use what force you deem necessary to defend your life or life of others, however in practice you have no means of that, ie you cannot be pre-armed with any form of effective defence because the police will and have prosecuted. So you are left with a population that obeys the law and is prayed on those who will not obey the law. The police will be there to document your demise and they may even be able prosecute the offender but normally a bit late for most reasonable people.
          So firearms aside, and these are the best force equaliser, the question would be non lethal (a bit of misnomer as nothing is truly non lethal) access like tazers, pepper spray, batons etc for people to use to defend themselves. But very tellingly, the government and police are against this idea, seemingly the argument is that if they are legal then criminals will be able to have them and used them to commit crimes. It is a bit irrelevant as there is currently an inquiry to figure out how criminals are getting guns (illegally) so go figure, criminals will get whatever they want to commit crimes with.
          The pressing point of this is that there are those in the population who focus on objects, and then try to prevent people from mis-using those objects in the mistaken believe that this will stop criminals from being criminal, you know the argument is that we are all the same so this must be so.
          Going back to your original point, I don’t think we are that different from the US, our criminals are extremely well armed and are still criminals, our law abiding citizens not so, so are protected only at the behest of the police and government. Sounds more and more like a police state now that I think about it.

        • BMSKiwi

          It is a matter of historical perspective.

          Gun control sounds obvious in our orderly Westminster democracies, where civil liberties are protected by powerful traditions and moral authority built up over centuries.

          It is not like this in most of the world, and certainly was not in the aftermath of the American revolution. An armed population was literally the best way to insure against governmental overreach.

          Those old dudes had seen idealistic societies fail again and again, so they tried something different.

          If our traditions ever fail or are destroyed by the left, we will make the same discovery.

      • Mick Ie

        You’re correct. In country where the right to bear arms allows everyone the right to self protection, by demanding the disarmament of legal gun bearers, this will deny them the right to defend themselves and others (as in this case) and more innocents will be injured or murdered.
        It will simply give the criminally minded gun user more unarmed human targets to choose from.

      • TM

        Totally agree. It is the same stupid logic that allows law makers believe that restraining orders and bracelets will stop criminals behaving badly. The precise reason these people need them is they have no respect for the law in the first place so by default they are pointless deterrents.

  • cows4me

    It’s a mistake to think politicians care about legally armed citizens defending themselves against their fellow citizens should they turn feral. Governments greatest concern is for themselves and it’s various organs of the state, a armed populace can quickly become a non compliant society. Gun control is about authority, power. Who cares if only criminals have guns, it’s the vast silent majority of law abiding, tax paying individuals that you have to control, this is the real danger.

    • Shalice

      Yes, exactly! That’s why Obummer and the Democrats are so bent on disarming the population while importing more Muslims.

      Edit : typo

    • The Fat Man

      Obuma, surrounded by an army of armed men and women, says that having armed people to stop an attack in a club is the silliest idea in the World,

  • Eiselmann

    Had this type of discussion on facebook recently, when one of the Liberals blamed the gun and not the shooter or the motivation(Islam) for Orlando, he was advocating disarming all the US population. I told him if you want that to happen then you have to ensure gangs are disarmed first.

    I told him growing up all the guns I knew of were in the hands of gang members and I never felt safe. Where I live now, the locals (farmers and hunters) have more firepower than the local gang could dream of and I feel a lot safer.

    Having grown up in middle class suburbia and spent his entire career in a University he couldn’t really argue my point ,except to say disarming gangs would involve sitting down and talking to them…..talk about channeling the larper and her solution to ISIS.

    • FornaK

      Just out of curiosity, what was her solution to ISIS?

      • Eiselmann

        Rather than support the Iraqis (and by extension various western Government) in any sort of military way she suggested we would get better results if we sat down with ISIS and worked on resolution to their grievances in a peaceful manner.

        It should be noted she didn’t volunteer to be an envoy sent to present this message of peace.

32%