On January 22 2016, a barber and a customer opened fire and killed one of two armed men who allegedly entered the business to rob patrons.
The incident occurred around 7 pm at Next Up Barber and Beauty in Columbia, South Carolina.
According to the Columbia Police Department, customers said “two armed men wearing masks demanded and stole money from them.” And in the course of moving around to collect money and valuables from patrons, the “two armed men” were met with gunfire from two concealed permit holders who were in the barbershop. One of the permit holders was Master Barber Elmurray Bookman and the other was a customer sitting in a barber chair.
Bookman told WLTX one of the masked men asked the customer for money the customer told him it was over by another chair. When the men moved toward the other chair to retrieve the money, the customer opened fire and Bookman opened fire as well.
Bookman described it this way:
When he came to him for his money, he told him that his money was over there in the chair. When the guy walked over to the chair, that’s when he came out and shot. Then when he started shooting, I came out and started shooting.
The Columbia Police Department said, “One of the suspects was shot multiple times before running from the business and collapsing outside” and the second escaped. The one that collapsed was later pronounced dead. [Another happy ending.]
Watch the Video and Read the Original Article at Ammo-Land
Honest citizens defend themselves with a firearm every day. I’m sure you’re shocked at that news since democrat politicians and news media tell us that armed self-defense never happens. Here are examples from the last few weeks. These ordinary citizens were thrown into extraordinary situations.
These armed defenders were both surprised… and prepared. They saved their life and protected those they love.
-A 65-year-old Manchester, New Hampshire woman stopped to buy gasoline after leaving work late at night. She noticed a dark colored sedan following her as she drove home to her apartment. She was concerned so she parked as close to her building as possible. She has her concealed carry permit and the training that comes with it. She moved her firearm from her purse to her pocket in case she needed it. She hurried to her apartment stairway but the mugger ran in front of her. He blocked her path and grabbed her shoulder. The elderly grandmother then drew her pistol and shot the mugger in the chest. He ran. The old woman took shelter in her building and called police. The mugger and his accomplice were picked up by police at a nearby hospital.
Anti-gun activists said this old lady would be safer if she was disarmed. What do you think?
-Two cars stopped in front of a home in Houston, Texas. Six to eight men piled out of the cars and quickly forced their way into a nearby home. A neighbor who was walking down the sidewalk witnessed the home invasion. One of the thugs pointed a gun at him. The neighbor was carrying a concealed weapon and shot and killed the robber in self-defense. This caused the other men to flee leaving and leave their stolen car behind. The armed pedestrian and the one person inside the home were not injured.
Anti-gun activists say we would be safer if law-abiding citizens were limited on how many bullets we can have in our guns. These eight thieves won’t follow that law.
What would have happened if this neighbor had only a few bullets in his gun?
-Two men knocked at the front door of a Memphis home at about 6 PM. A woman opened the door and one man forced his way inside. The intruder put a gun against the woman’s neck. The male homeowner heard the woman scream. Fortunately, he was armed and stepped toward the front door. The homeowner shot the armed intruder several times. The dead assailant had a long criminal record including arrests for aggravated burglary and aggravated assault.
Anti-rights activists say we would be safer if our guns were disassembled and locked in a gun safe. Did this man have time to open a safe?
-A North St Louis county homeowner heard two men loudly bang on his front door. The homeowner had recently moved into the home. He didn’t recognize the men and wasn’t expecting visitors at 10:30 in the morning. Fortunately, the homeowner was armed when the two thieves smashed through the back door of his home. The armed burglars shot at the homeowner. The homeowner shot back and killed one of the thieves. The second thief ran and was arrested by police a few days later. He was wanted for several recent robberies.
Drug gangs shoot ten thousand people each year, yet anti-rights activists say we would be safer if honest citizens were disarmed. Does that make sense to you?
-Three masked men entered a Family Dollar store late at night. One of the thieves pointed a gun at the store clerk and demanded the money in the cash register. Fortunately, one of the customers standing in line was armed with a gun of his own. He pointed his gun at the robbers, but the three thieves turned and ran before the armed customer could fire. Police in Newport News, Virginia said these three thieves were wanted for a string of similar robberies.
The armed customer saved lives without firing a shot. Would we really be safer if honest citizens were disarmed?
Students for Concealed Carry respects that university presidents and system chancellors have a difficult task in implementing the state’s new campus carry law, and we commend institutions such as the University of Texas at Tyler and Texas State University for addressing legitimate concerns while respecting the clear intent of the law.
Unfortunately, a handful of universities are considering policies that would undermine the intent and, in some cases, the very letter of the legislation signed by Governor Abbott.
The University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston wants to prohibit concealed carry in 80% of its buildings, despite the fact that only 9% of its buildings are used for patient care. Included below is a copy of the campus carry map created by the UTMB campus carry committee. On it you’ll see that—not counting parking structures, where the university has no authority to ban concealed carry—the committee recommends prohibiting concealed carry in 135 of its 170 buildings. Just fifteen of those 170 buildings are identified as being used for patient care.
UTMB even wants to ban concealed carry in its medical library because the library houses a collection of rare documents and antique microscopes that they believe could be damaged by gunfire. We at SCC do not believe that the legislators who concluded that licensed concealed carry can be safely allowed near students would agree that it cannot be safely allowed near rare artifacts. If that were the case, concealed carry would surely be prohibited at the Bob Bullock Texas State History Museum or even in the Texas Capitol. More significantly, we believe that prohibiting licensed concealed carry on more than three-quarters of a campus clearly violates the law’s prohibition against rules or regulations that “have the effect of generally prohibiting license holders from carrying concealed handguns on the campus.”
Both the University of North Texas and Texas Tech University want to prohibit concealed carry at large venues that host events such as performances of the performing arts. This means that a license holder attending a play at UNT or Texas Tech would be denied the same right he or she enjoys when visiting a movie theater in Denton or Lubbock. We do not think it is reasonable to claim that the size of the venue necessitates prohibiting licensed concealed carry at a performance of a university choir or symphony, given that concealed carry is already allowed at countless musical and theatrical performances throughout the state, including at the Austin City Limits Music Festival, which each year attracts a crowd twice the size of Lubbock’s total population and four times the size of Denton’s total population.
The ACL Music Festival also serves as a strong rebuttal to UNT’s proposal that the university president be allowed to ban concealed carry campus wide for up to seven days when the university hosts a large-scale event involving the presence of alcohol. We believe that proposals such as these have less to do with the uniqueness of the campus environment than with task force members not understanding how licensed concealed carry is managed throughout the rest of the state.
This problem of being unfamiliar with and perhaps even paranoid about concealed carry is also demonstrated by several universities suggesting that concealed carry be banned at student recreation centers because, in their view, license holders cannot be trusted to keep their handguns concealed while working out. This proposal ignores the fact that license holders manage to exhibit sound judgment regarding when and when not to carry handguns at private health clubs; the fact that recreation centers are largely staffed by men and women whose jobs require them to wear business casual attire, not tank tops or swimsuits; and the fact that many of these facilities include student lounges, meeting rooms, and other non-athletic venues.
SCC is particularly concerned that both Texas Tech and the University of Texas at Austin want to let occupants of private offices designate their offices as criminally enforceable “gun-free” zones. Because the duties of a faculty member, staff member, research assistant, or teaching assistant may require entering one or more private offices multiple times each day, this policy would leave many license holders unable to carry on campus at all.
Consider, for example, an IT technician who must troubleshoot computers in numerous offices, a teaching assistant who must visit a professor’s office multiple times a day, or a research assistant who must coordinate with professors and graduate students in a half-dozen private offices? If, as the University of Texas has proposed, license holders are prohibited from leaving a handgun in a desk drawer or unattended backpack, how are these license holders supposed to accommodate an ever-changing patchwork of “gun-free” offices? Given that most license holders on campus are likely to be faculty, staff, or graduate students, a policy that renders many if not most faculty, staff, and graduate students unable to lawfully carry on campus must be viewed as a general prohibition.
Furthermore, why should employees of state colleges be the only state employees with the authority to arbitrarily criminalize licensed concealed carry in their offices? Licensed concealed carry is currently allowed in every office in the Texas Capitol. We at SCC do not think it reasonable for an employee of a state university to have more authority over licensed concealed carry than does a county clerk, a municipal waste management supervisor, or even a Texas legislator.
Finally, the most egregious policy proposal comes from the University of Texas at Austin and the University of Texas Rio Grande Valley. They recommend that any license holder carrying a semiautomatic handgun on campus be required to carry the handgun with an unloaded chamber. This proposal would require license holders to use an inferior carry method in which very few of them are trained.
Included below are statements from highly qualified and, in some cases, world-renowned firearms instructors, denouncing this proposed empty-chamber policy. Also included are a couple of SCC press releases that go into greater detail about the many problems inherent to such a policy.
The short explanation is that requiring a semiautomatic handgun to be carried with an empty chamber would minimize and, in some cases, completely negate the handgun’s usefulness in a self-defense scenario. Furthermore, requiring this method of carry would render useless most training received from a civilian shooting school, a police academy, or the U.S. military. After months of heated debates about whether or not license holders have adequate training to carry guns on college campuses, this policy would turn even the most well-trained license holders into neophytes.
Additionally, this policy would create a whole new set of risks. For example, license holders unhappy with the minimal protection offered by a half-loaded gun would almost certainly drive to campus with the chamber loaded and then sit in their cars in the university parking lot, where the university has no authority to regulate concealed carry, and remove the live round from the chamber—a process much more likely to result in an accidental or negligent discharge than is anything a license holder would normally do during the course of a day. Then, at the end of the day, those same license holders would use the concealment of their cars to reload the chamber before driving home.
Conversely, license holders who walk or ride the bus to campus would be forced to use this inferior method of carry during their commutes. That means that a graduate student who encounters an assailant while walking home would have to rely on a half-loaded handgun for protection.
One of the most perplexing things about this proposed policy is the distinction it draws between semiautomatic handguns and revolvers. Both a double-action revolver and a double-action semiautomatic require roughly the same amount of pressure to pull the trigger, and both fire a round when the trigger is pulled; therefore, this policy seems to indicate an inadequate understanding of modern firearms.
The proposal that license holders carry guns with empty chambers is presumably aimed at preventing accidental or negligent discharges; however, simply requiring every handgun to be kept in a holster that covers the trigger guard is all that is needed to prevent a negligent discharge. This proposed empty-chamber policy is not just unnecessary; it is dangerous and counterproductive on virtually every front. We at SCC cannot conceive of any justification by which this policy could be considered “reasonable.”
Students for Concealed Carry believes that the Texas Legislature should clarify the scope and intent of the “reasonable rules” university presidents are authorized to make. We suggest that the legislature study the rules proposed by the various universities, codify those that make sense, and statutorily prohibit those that do not.
About Students for Concealed Carry:
Students for Concealed Carry (SCC) is a national, non-partisan, grassroots organization comprising college students, faculty, staff, and concerned citizens who believe that holders of state-issued concealed handgun licenses should be allowed the same measure of personal protection on college campuses that current laws afford them virtually everywhere else. SCC is not affiliated with the NRA or any other organization. For more information on the debate over campus carry in Texas, visit WhyCampusCarry.com.
In a recent article in Ammo-Land, Don McDougall presents a case to back-up a recent comment made by GOP Presidential Hopeful Ted Cruz stating that the increased number of Rapes and Sexual Assaults in Australia was a direct result of their National Gun Confiscation program.
To further back up this point, all one has to look at is the current RAPE EPIDEMIC in Europe being caused by these POS muslim thugs they like to call “refugees”. Do yo think these thugs would be as BOLD in their crimes if they knew people had guns to defend themselves? Hell No! The sad part is most of these poor people in Europe would be satisfied just to have some pepper spray for self-defense! (Which of course is illegal in most all of Europe.)
In another Ammo-Land article, I submitted below, Phillip Evans tells how BHO outright LIED to a Rape Survivor at one of those now famous anti-gun Propaganda carnivals called the “CNN Gun Control Town Hall Meeting”. In a nutshell, Evans basically shows how leftist elitist pretend to empower women but in reality basically think they are poor, little mentally inept defenseless creatures
For my own personal reasons which I will not go into right now, I feel very STRONGLY about Rape Prevention and Awareness and find the outright LIES told by BHO and this Govt. about Gun Control and Crime, specifically Rape, Disgusting and Atrocious.
Really read this article and double-check the facts like I did. I think you will come to the same conclusion I did. -SF
President Obama pontifically told Kimberly Corban in a propaganda event touted as a “CNN Gun Control Town Hall Meeting” that she’d be more likely to have her gun taken away and used against her.
In his answer to Ms. Corban, he stated, “What is true is you have to be pretty well trained in order to fire a weapon against somebody who is assaulting you and catches you by surprise, and what is also true is there is always the possibility that a firearm in a home leads to a tragic accident.” (bold mine)
He then goes on to talk about background checks to prevent criminals from buying firearms. Not that criminals typically obtain their weapons where background checks are already required to be performed, such as from dealers at gun stores or gun shows. Criminals either steal them or buy them on the street, where no background check is done, even if there were a law requiring it in those cases.
Or, “surprise”, criminals have someone who can pass a background check purchase one for them. Looks like we have a background check “loop-hole” here that can’t seem be closed by any law.
Perhaps they could pass a law making it illegal to do a “straw purchase”. Oh, excuse me, they already did. Problem solved, right?
Right after this, Obama said, “There’s no doubt that there are times when somebody who has a weapon has been able to protect themselves and scare off an intruder or an assailant, but what is more often the case is they may not have been able to protect themselves but they end up being the victim of the weapon that they purchased themselves.” (bold mine)
There’s nothing like leftist elitists to pretend to empower women when at the same time they pat them on the head and basically say:
“Forget it, little lady, you just don’t have the ability to do what you believe you can do. You’ll wind up getting hurt, so don’t resist and think happy thoughts while being raped.”
“Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was ‘used’ by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies”. (bold mine)
Women who had used firearms had better outcomes overall than women who either did not resist, or who fought back using less effective means. In other words, they were not raped, and they were not murdered.
Strong Women Are Despised
Make no mistake, if you are a strong woman who believes you can successfully defend yourself against a rapist by using a firearm, you are first patronized, as Obama did to Kimberly Corban, then scoffed at and belittled, and finally utterly despised by those for whom your worldview conflicts with their anti-gun narrative. They are not actually opposed to guns, they just want only the government and its agents to have guns, and not the citizens.
Idiots Galore
The more successful women are in using firearms to defend themselves against criminals, the more foolish these patronizers are revealed to be.
If you want a good laugh look up Vice President Biden’s video where he suggests to get a double-barreled shotgun and fire two shots outside your house to scare away anyone that might want to break in. This is a video from February 2013 in which he was responding to online questions from readers of Parents Magazine.
Vice President Biden’s Advice
“If you want to protect yourself get a double-barreled shotgun. Have the shells of a 12-gauge shotgun, and I promise you, as I told my wife – we live in an area that is wooded and somewhat secluded – I said, Jill, if there is ever a problem, just walk out on the balcony here – put that double-barreled shotgun – fire two blasts outside the house – I promise you whoever is coming in is not gonna – you don’t need an AR-15. It’s harder to aim. It’s harder to use. And in fact, you don’t need 30 rounds to protect yourself. Buy a shotgun. Buy a shotgun.”
First of all, this sounds like a good way to quickly rid your double-barreled shotgun of its ammunition. What will Biden then advise you to do then when multiple bad guys pop around the corner while you hold an empty weapon?
2nd Amendment Not About Need
Secondly, he states you don’t need an AR-15 and don’t need 30 rounds. Perhaps Biden knows better how to protect you than you do? Really? Well, even if he did know better in some alternate reality universe where the absurd passed for common sense, the Second Amendment is not about NEED. It’s about the RIGHT to keep and bear arms.
As far as an AR-15 being harder to aim than a shotgun; how is that so? It’s a lighter weapon with a single 16” small caliber barrel, compared to the heavy shotgun with two 20” barrels that he recommends. And harder to use? That double-barreled shotgun must be opened up when empty, to load only two more shells, then closed again, and those large barrels are not light to swing down and then back up again to do a reload. With an AR-15, you don’t have to reload until 30 rounds are fired, then you can pop out the light-weight magazine and insert a fresh one easily.
Excellent Choice For Self-Defense
Biden is clueless on the use of firearms in self-defense and doesn’t have to be anything other than that. He and his family have highly trained and well-armed government agents with rifles similar to the AR-15 that protect them 24/7. Oh, but he doesn’t want you to own an AR-15 “assault weapon” that can hold 30 rounds and fire one bullet per pull of the trigger.
No! He only wants you to have just two rounds to fire, then you can reload your shotgun while under attack by multiple criminals breaking into your home. He sounds like a great guy who cares about women. Not!
To tell the truth, if multiple criminals were breaking into my house, and all I had was an AR-15 rifle with only one 30 round magazine, I’d feel under-equipped. I’d want at least a spare “high capacity” magazine or two. Contrary to the government, I trust citizens to own these rifles. They are light-weight and make excellent self-defense weapons. They do not “spray” bullets as their military counter-part, the M16 can. And one should be able to own an AR-15 even if not a deer hunter. It is a fine self-defense firearm.
Firearms Hard To Use By Women?
Some examples of women’s success using firearms in self-defense are presented below. Does anyone believe that these women had to have been “pretty well trained”, as Obama asserted they must have been? Firearms are not as difficult to operate as some would have you believe.
If they are trying to persuade you that you should leave your protection to professionals, such as the police and other government agents, I can assure you they will present firearms as being very difficult for you to use in your own defense. They will give you a sympathetic look, speak with a voice that exudes concern, and proceed to tell you in a nice way that you’re an idiot for thinking you can defend yourself with a gun, just as Obama did with Kimberly Corban.
Self-Defense Example One: A Cape Girardeau, Missouri woman borrowed a friend’s shotgun (by the way this would be illegal if mandatory background checks for private transfers were required) after being unarmed and raped Oct 25th, 2008. Six days later she shot and killed Ronnie W. Preyer as he was breaking into her house a second time to rape her again, and most likely murder her. Before breaking in he had cut the power to her house.
Good thing she didn’t waste the shells by firing blindly outside her house!
Self-Defense Example Two: A female Days Inn motel clerk in 2011 defended herself against a rapist weighing 100 pounds more than her and standing a foot taller. He was armed with a knife and was starting to tie her up with zip ties when she took a .22 pistol from under her shirt and shot him square in the chest. When police arrived they found him dead right there on the floor.
Tell Obama’s lie to the “little lady” motel clerk! She was neither raped nor murdered by her attacker thanks to her good use of her pistol.
Self-Defense Example Three: In July, 2002, an Albuquerque woman wishing to be identified only as “Mira” faced a convicted rapist, 51-year-old Michael Magirl, after he broke into her home, climbed into her bed, and held a gun to her chest. She did not have a gun until she managed to wrestle his gun away from him, and shot him twice, killing him.
Talk about turning the tables around! Perhaps Mira could give Obama a lesson on what women are capable of when it comes to firearms and self-defense. Even if situations like Mira’s do not happen often, at the very least I suspect that woman who already have their own gun would be able to handle their own business.
Guns Save Lives
To search for additional true stories of self-defense by women using firearms, visit http://gunssavelives.net/ or just use Google. Disclaimer: Most cases of self-defense involving firearms will not be found anywhere in the news, because not a single shot was fired.
Why The Lies?
Democrats lie to women by saying they need a lot of training in order to use a gun in self-defense. Many women have used pistols, rifles, and shotguns successfully in self-defense with only basic point and shoot knowledge. Women, as all other adults, know how much training they are comfortable with, and obtain training in NRA classes, from friends, relatives, and other sources.
Democrats lie to women by saying with a straight face that an AR-15 is hard to aim and hard to use.
Democrats lie to women by telling them it is more likely their own gun will be used against them by a criminal.
Democrats lie to women by telling them the danger is greater from a firearm related accident at home than from criminals.
Manipulation Attempt
These lies are Democrats’ attempt to manipulate women into buying into their gun confiscation scheme, and into buying into their worldview that victim-hood is better than protecting yourself. Their victim-hood mindset for Americans make it easier for government to offer and sell its solutions for safety and security. Citizens who deign prefer to protect themselves are viewed as rogues, and a danger to government’s plans for disarming them.
In other words, those who honor the Constitution and prefer liberty are viewed as a threat.
Prison Time For Dissenters
Democrats are chomping at the bit to be able to ban AR-15’s and all other rifles like them. They already make the argument you don’t need them for hunting, self-defense, sport shooting, or recreation. Therefore, free American citizens should be banned from possessing them. Democrats already propose bills that would make such malum prohibitum laws enforced with heavy fines and long prison time merely for possession of these firearms, even if they are secured at home for nothing more than self-defense purposes.
That sounds like tyranny to me.
Depend On Government For Safety?
All of this proves is that Regular Democrats and Republican Democrats do not trust citizens to have the means to defend themselves. Democrats hate the idea of self-sufficiency. They want you to depend on government for your safety from criminals and terrorists so they can stay in power and pass more laws which infringe on your freedoms.
They lackadaisically enforce our southern border while criminals from Mexico and other countries south of it continue to invade us, and then import refugees from countries where ISIS is active and infiltrating the refugee population, with no way to truly vet them before they enter our country.
These things make our lives more dangerous as we go about our daily business. Yet, the government at the same time is telling us we cannot have the tools we choose to keep ourselves and our families safe. Because we don’t need them. Just because they say so.
Some of us refuse to trade away our liberty in order to have the “privilege” of being told what we can and can’t own, for “our own good”. We’re not buying what they’re selling.
About Phillip Evans:
The author is a self-defense rights advocate and member of the NRA, GeorgiaCarry.org, and FloridaCarry.org, and posts at PursuitOfPatriotism.com.
Well what a surprise, I just posted an article on this very subject…it is so bad in Europe right now you have politicians begging for restrictions on PEPPER SPRAY to be revoked! Take this as a cautionary tale my friends. Stand up for your Rights NOW. -SF
After decades of voluntarily surrendering their liberty and freedom for the promise of safety, the peasants of Europe are now clamoring for something with which to protect themselves.
The same governments that stripped away most every form of defensive tool from the citizens are the same ones importing criminal monsters by the thousands to prey upon the helpless and disarmed.
During this episode of Student of the Gun Radio the boys discuss the predicament in which the disarmed peasantry of Europe have found themselves. Like the eunuch trying to reverse the neutering process, victimized citizens of the Old World are finding that it is not working out so well for them.
Student of the Gun Radio airs every Monday through Thursday at 9 a.m. EST and can be found by going directly to www.StudentoftheGunRadio.com. Those using mobile devices can download the SOTG Mobile App of follow us with iTunes or Stitcher.
SOTG Radio is a Think On! production. Student of the Gun is the #1 source for education, enjoyment and enlightenment of real-world firearms including: training, videos, radio, books and articles. A beginner once, a student for life.
Being a Student of the Gun is not about being a novice or beginner. Student of the Gun represents a lifelong journey of education, enlightenment and the enjoyment of firearms.
Each episode will introduce the viewer to new and interesting firearms as well as the latest gear to go with them. We will travel throughout the United States, seeking the advice and expertise of the best firearms trainers available.
Sometimes deadly serious, sometimes just for fun, Student of the Gun will always strive to educate and entertain our viewers while offering them an insiders’ look at the worlds of firearms.
