Concealed Weapons Carrier Stops Mass Shooting

From GoUpstate.com:

Jody Ray Thompson, 32, of 15 Lake Vista Drive, has been charged with four counts of attempted murder, possession of a weapon during the commission of a violent crime and unlawful carrying of a weapon.

Shots rang out at the Playoffz nightclub at 105 B Little Mountain Road before 3:30 a.m. Sunday, according to an incident report from the Spartanburg County Sheriff’s Office.

Deputies believe Thompson got into an argument with another man and began firing into a crowd of people outside the club, Lt. Kevin Bobo, a Spartanburg County Sheriff’s Office spokesman, said in an email.

Three people were shot. Another man who was shot at returned fire with his own handgun and struck Thompson in the leg, he said.

He acted in self-defense and has a concealed weapons permit, so he’s not being charged, Bobo said.

Had none of the patrons been armed, the carnage could have been much worse. This event underscores what we’ve been arguing on these boards for some time. The counter to mass shootings is strong enforcement of existing laws, a strong security apparatus, and armed citizens. Instead of headlines about another mass shooting, we have essentially nothing from the MSM because a good guy with a gun was there to save the day. That would, of course, spoil the narrative that guns are the problem.

Keep America safe and armed.

gun-free-zone-300x200

Discontent with Clinton and Trump
Warren as Clinton's Running Mate?
  • pennywit

    It looks like it got at least some coverage in local media.

  • Keep Society Free, Polite, and Armed.

  • Brucehenry

    To some folks, reports of a drunken argument outside a nightclub at 330 am degenerating into a shootout is evidence that there is no need for further gun control in the US.

    • Vagabond661

      Yes, the fact a good guy with a gun prevented something worse happening escapes the mental capacity for some folks.

      • Brucehenry

        Oh I’m sure there are lots of good anecdotes to support the “good guy with a gun” argument, but this doesn’t sound like one of them. You know it and I know it.

        This doesn’t sound like any “mass shooting” attempt, like Loughner or Lanza or Mateen, to me.

        A drunken fracas in a nightclub parking lot turning deadly because the drunks are armed, is what this sounds like.

        • Vagabond661

          Of course this is one of those cases. Do you know how many times a drunk who shoot? or how many people he or she will kill? The shooting STOPPED when a good guy fired back and hit the D&D. Period. That’s what stopped it. You know it and I know it.

          Besides this isn’t so much of lack of gun control as lack of alcohol control.

          • Brucehenry

            I’m not really arguing that this is proof of the need for more gun control, just that it isn’t evidence otherwise.

            Don’t you guys have any life experience? Haven’t any of you ever BEEN in a honkytonk at closing time? Ever had a fight, or a scrape that looked like it might turn dangerous?

            Well, I have, and can tell by a news report the difference between Sandy Hook and a barfight on steroids.

          • Vagabond661

            no shit. but still doesn’t mean that a lot of people could have been killed. How many has to be shot to qualify as a mass shooting to you?

            BTW I am 62 and former Navy submariner so yes i have had life experience.

          • Brucehenry

            This article and headline disingenuously implies that this shooting was of the Orlando/San Bernardino/ Sandy Hook sort, when anyone with any life experience, anyone who ever read a news report about a streetcorner argument turning deadly, knows damn well that’s not what this was.

            As I said, there are plenty of examples of “good guys with guns” foiling robberies and other mayhem. This just wasn’t a good example, and pretending it was an example of someone foiling a “mass shooting” undermines the point.

          • Vagabond661

            again I ask. How many have to be shot for you to consider it a mass shooting? Is 3 on the edge of a mass shooting? 5? a baker’s dozen?

            Facts are: 3 were shot. and one who was shot returned fire. So it’s likely more people could have been shot had not one returned fire. So a mass shooting was stopped.

          • Brucehenry

            The phrase “mass shooting” has taken on a new and rather limited meaning these past few years. We both know and so does this author that when people hear that phrase these days they think of Newtown, not the Playoffz parking lot.

            So yes, this guy stopped the drunk who was shooting up the parking lot, but to imply that this guy was equivalent to Lanza or Loughner is ummmm, a stretch.

          • Rdm42

            The new definition of mass shooting is ‘whatever size and conditions surrounding a shooting which are convenient to push gun control’ – if it meets those conditions it’s a mass shooting. If it doesn’t it isn’t.

          • Brucehenry

            I agree that is just as dishonest when gun control advocates push this “there have been more mass shootings than days this year” meme.

          • No rational person cares about your views on what is and is not honest.

          • Brucehenry

            Nor yours about…well, anything, since you are a drive-by bilespewer, tiresome and pathetic.

          • The projection remains strong with you.

          • Rdm42

            So would the people he shot somehow be less dead?

          • Scalia

            Exactly. If we wait until 20 people are shot, then the good guy’s gun didn’t do any good. A guy fires continuously into a crowd, but he’s stopped after hitting three or four people, but that doesn’t qualify as a mass shooting. Anyway, I’ve previously posted where some have come loaded down to kill many people, but they were stopped by a good guy/gal with a gun. No matter. Fascists don’t care about facts. That’s why when they can’t argue the data, they make things up.

          • jim_m

            According to the government the number is 4.

          • Scalia

            Of course. And when it comes to banning guns, liberals will count all 4 and over shootings as “mass shootings” in order to drum up hype against guns. Now, because 20 people weren’t killed, we can’t count it as a mass shooting–even though the shooter fired repeatedly into a crowd and didn’t stop until he was shot. Their duplicity knows no end.

          • jim_m

            Leftists need bodies to stand on while they advance their agenda.

          • Scalia

            There is nothing in any of the reports I’ve seen to indicate that any party was drunk. Bruce just made that up.

          • Brucehenry

            Sure nobody was drunk in the parking lot at “Playoffz” at 330 am while they were arguing, and one of the completely sober gentlemen pulled out a hogleg and opened fire.

            Like I said, no life experience.

          • Vagabond661

            Did the story say they were drunk or did you make that up?

          • Scalia

            He made it up. That’s what liars do. He’s so obsessed with his ideology, he will lie to deflect the very obvious truth that a good guy with a gun saved lives.

          • Brucehenry

            It is fair to say that a “good guy with a gun saved lives,” I guess, but not that he “stopped a mass shooting,” since the phrase “mass shooting” has, as I mentioned, taken on a rather limited meaning these past few years.

          • Rdm42

            The ‘limited meaning’ being ‘whatever meaning is necessary to help push a strict gun control narrative at the time’

          • Brucehenry

            As I just replied to you above, yes, it is disingenuous to characterize run of the mill gun crime as “mass shootings,” especially considering that most folks, I think, think of “mass shootings” as things perpetrated by either a Loughner on the one hand or a Mateen on the other.

          • Brucehenry

            The story didn’t have to say it. Sober people don’t have screaming shouting matches at 330 in the morning in saloon parking lots that turn into shooting incidents.

            It’s not “making it up,” it’s saying what we all know.

          • jim_m

            In other words you made that up. If I had a dollar for every time you castigated me for making that sort of a conclusion I could fund a presidential campaign.

          • Brucehenry

            Maybe Trump’s.

          • Scalia

            He’s just trying to justify his falsehood–just like all liars do. He’s beneath contempt.

          • jim_m
          • Finally got there, eh?

          • Scalia

            My only regret is that I did not see that earlier.

          • Scalia

            An honest person (which Bruce isn’t), would simply say, “Yeah, I guess I made an unwarranted assumption. My bad,” but instead of owning up, he doubled down. Bad memory, bad logic, and bad morals.

          • Brucehenry

            And Scalia used to have gravitas and common sense, which is what made his comments interesting. Nowadays he pretends that an argument that occurs at 330 am in a nightclub’s parking lot has nothing to do with alcohol, and that assuming that it does is “unwarranted,” as if any of us here were born yesterday. So much for common sense.

            And slings around insults like “fascist” and “liar” and “bad morals.” So much for gravitas.

            So sure, whatever, both of these guys were sober as judges, probably! And this guy who whipped out a hogleg in the middle of an argument in a nightclub parking lot — while being totally sober, natch — is EXACTLY like Omar Mateen and Adam Lanza. And this is a perfect example of a good guy with a gun stopping a mentally ill person or ideologically inspired extremist, as most people think of a “mass shooter” these days.

          • Scalia

            Still doubling down. What a lowlife scumbag you are.

            EDIT:

            Nowadays he pretends that an argument that occurs at 330 am in a nightclub’s parking lot has nothing to do with alcohol,

            Liars can’t stop lying. I never said alcohol didn’t have anything to do with it. Nothing in any news item I’ve seen says it was involved, so it is unwarranted to assume (as you have done) that it was involved. You made it up.

          • Brucehenry

            What a surprise.

            You really need to lighten up. This is a comment section, not a courtroom, and commenters have not been bound by courtroom rules of evidence, at least as long as I’ve been a regular here.

            You say that assuming that an argument that turns into a shooting at 330 am in a saloon’s parking lot is related to alcohol is “unwarranted.” I say it is pretty much the only logical assumption. To assume OTHERWISE would be unwarranted. And naive. And would fly in the face of all one’s life experience. Is it POSSIBLE that no one was drunk in this incident? Sure, I guess, but is it AT ALL likely? Umm NO.

            And remember, this blog gig was supposed to be fun. Don’t let it turn you into a bilious angry ragedoggie like Jim or Rodney.

          • Scalia

            I won’t put up with your lies any longer. When you put them up, they’ll be deleted immediately. I normally wouldn’t lower myself to try to point out the where and when to somebody as stupid as you, but I’m going to rub your nose in it this time. Your now-deleted post says, in part:

            I have never “lied” in this comment section…To say that any comments I have made on Wizbang were deliberate lies is disingenuous word-twisting at best and itself a bigass lie at worst.

            I had pointed out precisely where you lied in this thread, and it went right by you. There are only two logical options: You’re too stupid to even comprehend basic English, or you’re too depraved to admit an obvious falsehood. One more time:

            Nowadays he [Scalia] pretends that an argument that occurs at 330 am in a nightclub’s parking lot has nothing to do with alcohol…

            I quoted those exact words in the post that I just linked. I followed up that quotation by saying, “Liars can’t stop lying. I never said alcohol didn’t have anything to do with it.” Neither my lead post nor anything I said in the comments section ever assumed or implied that alcohol had nothing to do with the altercation. I responded to your allegation that it DID. You wrote,

            To some folks, reports of a drunken argument outside a nightclub at 330 am degenerating into a shootout is evidence that there is no need for further gun control in the US.

            Again, I NEVER said alcohol wasn’t a factor; I rightly said that no report stated that alcohol was involved so we can neither assume nor assert that it did. Your characterization of what I said it an outright lie. You didn’t stretch the truth; you lied (or you’re to stupid to recognize what a falsehood is).

            You were similarly dishonest in the transgender thread, but given your inability to see a blatant falsehood here, it’s no wonder you can’t see it there.

            And remember, this blog gig was supposed to be fun.

            If lying about what other people said is your idea of fun, you need to see a doctor. You’re sick. If you’re not sick, then “lowlife scum” fits you to a T.

            Don’t bother responding because unless you can apologize, you’re done on this thread.

          • Scalia

            For the record, Bruce apologized via email for putting words in my mouth, and I accepted.

          • Non public apologies are worth less than the paper they are printed on.

          • Scalia

            Since I had said that no further posts of his would be allowed on this thread without an apology, he may have wanted to test run it via email. If I had done something similar, I would have posted the apology after receiving an acceptance. We’ll see what he does. Nonetheless, he did apologize, so the issue here is resolved as far as I’m concerned. It is not resolved with respect to previous issues.

          • Vagabond661

            What do you think the chances are of more people getting shot? How do you know it wasn’t a jealous girlfriend/wife who just arrived?

            Do I think people are drunk at 3:30am? Sure. But some are designated drivers. some are employees. some are stone cold sober. Life experience tells me that.

          • Scalia

            When a man fires repeatedly into a crowd, hits three or four people and only stops when he is shot, that qualifies as an attempted mass shooting. Like I said, the lunatic liberals would have us wait until 20 people were shot before calling it a mass shooting. We won’t wait that long.

          • Brucehenry

            Wait, did the article SAY any of these people were designated drivers or employees, or did you just “make that up?”

            Watch out before you are called a lying fascist with bad morals, lol.

          • Vagabond661

            Wait, did I say my comment applied to that article? Or did I reference my life experiences?

            Careful or you will be called a reactionary lying liberal commie!

          • Accurately.

          • jim_m

            Never heard of a designated driver?

    • Rdm42

      So Bruce, if Omar Mateen is shot by a legal concealed carry does he somehow not stop shooting ther people where a drunken idiot outside a night club at 3:30 does?

      • Scalia

        Or, if Mateen were armed with a 9mm and was shot down after wounding three people, the only places we would be hearing about him would be from a news report out of Orlando and from pro-gun websites.

  • Scalia

    To some folks, ideology trumps facts and entitles the same to make them up.

    • Our leftards have their own set of facts, facts which are no such thing.

  • Paul Hooson

    nd

  • heptacableguy

    I’m highlighting that the accompanying photo shows a Beretta semi-auto either being drawn from or returned to the inside-waistband holster WITH THE DECOCKER (SAFETY) OFF. Observe the red dot in the photo.

    At least the hammer is not cocked in the photo!

    I can accept that the article’s author did not select the photo in question but someone in the editing chain should have caught and corrected this major safety violation.

    • jim_m

      There is no rule that says that the safety has to be on. One can safely decock the pistol and then release the safety. The pistol then acts as a conventional double action pistol at that point.