"Concealed carry laws are a useless weapon against church shootings" - Chicago Tribune

The Trib lives up to its reputation for distorting the news, asserting that "Concealed Carry parishioners in Texas would have been unable to subdue a determined killer ..."

(See the original Chicago Tribune column by Dahleen Glanton) hereafter referred to as "she".

I must have misread all of the reports which categorically stated that an armed citizen stopped the Texas Church Shooting the other day.  (Reference: National Review, USA TODAY, CNN, CBS Baltimore. etc.)

Because a Chicago Tribune "contributor" contends that the man who stopped the Texas Church Shooting contends that he didn't stop the murders.

Concealed carry laws are a useless weapon against church shootings - Chicago Tribune:

Everyone knows that the issue of firearms is both complex and contentious. There is no “one-size-fits-all” answer to how to stop mass shootings from occurring in churches or anywhere else.

But it is unlikely a parishioner armed with a handgun would have been able to subdue a determined killer like Devin Kelley. Dressed in all black, wearing bulletproof tactical gear, carrying a military-style rifle and equipped with dozens of rounds of ammunition, Kelley entered the Texas church prepared for a massacre. When he was done, 26 people, about half of them children, were dead.

(emphasis added)

And yet, one armed man did stop the killing.  And you have a lot of nerve to contend that he did not.

It's amazing that a Chicago newspaper is so eager to denigrate the willingness of Texans to protect their own innocents; one can only assume that the Liberal Message ("Guns are always bad!") is more important than the truth as far as that Chicago Tribune contributor is concerned.

Glanton quotes Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (out of context):  

“All I can say is in Texas at least we have the opportunity to have conceal carry," he said. "And so ... there's always the opportunity that gunman will be taken out before he has the opportunity to kill very many people."

(Glanton opines:) "The attorney general is delusional if he thinks an armed church member or even a security guard could have frightened Kelley into submission."

It may be possible that the Tribune Reporter merely misunderstood the Attorney General of Texas.

More likely, she is so involved in her personal anti-gun opinion that she cannot be relied upon to candidly quote her original news source without demonstrating her contempt for defense of the Second Amendment.

Glanton lives in Chicago, which has (arguably) the most strict anti-gun laws, and the highest murder-by-gun rates in the country ... yet she has the temerity to castigate Texas because their laws allow a private citizen to stop a mass shooting before it went any farther than it did?

Perhaps the key point in her screed is evidenced in her phrase: " ... could have frightened (the murderer) into submission".

Lady, the armed Texan didn't "frighten Kelley into submission".

He shot him dead, right then and there.  In doing so he stopped the murder of innocents immediately.

(And you would hoped for a 'better solution"?  Like ... maybe he would have convinced the gunman to stop shooting people by voicing a persuasive, logical argument?)

People who don't recognize a Hero when they see one, and who are all-too-ready to second guess them for "doing the right thing" ...?

She disgusts me.



Officials have decided to NOT identify the hero who ultimately stopped the shooter.  It's unfortunate that our community cannot properly celebrate his contribution, but perhaps in respect for his future safety that is a reasonable decision.

Whomever he is ... thank you for your efforts to preserve the civility of our nation, and protect innocents from madmen.   You probably saved many lives, and you deserve much more recognition than you will ever receive.