Quote of the Day
He did not like it when bullets started firing both ways.
Jordan Salinas
August 2, 2026
Civilian returns fire during Idaho In‑N‑Out mass shooting | Idaho Statesman
See also Townhall – Why Gun Control Activists Can’t Praise Idaho Armed Citizen.
You would think the anti-gun people would know this and realize sending bullets in the direction of violent criminal would be better than making laws to ban guns. Laws banning recreation drugs don’t prevent the use of the drugs. And creating a black market for guns isn’t going to prevent criminals from using guns or even make them unhappy. Banned guns become another market for criminal activities.
But sending bullets at them at 1,000 feet per second? That can seriously chill their body temperature as well as their mood.
He planned for a slaughter, but he wasn’t prepared for a shoot-out.
The lesson for today: Don’t get in a shoot-out, if you can at all avoid it. But if you find yourself in someone else’s slaughter, turn it into a shoot-out. It’s better than the alternative.
Banning guns makes slaughters more likely, because laws only effectively apply to the law-abiding.
Making shoot-outs more probable, however, makes them less likely.
I was thinking about that, and came to this conclusion:
Shoot-outs are bad, but slaughters are decidedly worse. If you’re caught in a shoot-out, there’s a chance you don’t walk away … but there’s also a chance you do. If you’re caught in a slaughter, you have a much higher chance of not walking away.
Ultimately, in a slaughter your life is 100% at the mercy of someone who is actively trying to kill people, which is not a good position to be in. Your other option is a shoot-out, where — if nothing else — you have something to add to the conversation.
I know which I’d prefer.
Gun free zones turn killings into mass murder. If you support them, you are advocating for double digit casualties. See The First Thirty Seconds by Ed Monk.
Precisely.
It’s true that sending bullets towards the criminal is likely to be helpful. At this point I have reached the conclusion that this is precisely why anti-gun people don’t like it.
I’m reminded of a rumor about Sullivan’s Law, the early gun ban (other than Black Codes) in NYC banning most guns. Allegedly Sullivan was a politician bought and paid for by the Mob, and he introduced that law as a way to help protect his bosses. Much in the same way that Black codes were created to protect the KKK.
Mr. Salinas did literally everything right. Trains and practices regularly, ran towards the sound of gunfire, engaged with the violent attacker, distracted him so he wasn’t shooting innocents, didn’t hit any bystanders.
He was even polite enough to preserve everyone’s ears by using an effective hearing protective device.
But as Cam said in his podcast: The antis aren’t going to talk to or about him at all, let alone congratulate him or hold him up as an example. He helped save lives through the “trained and responsible” use of a firearm they always say they want, but … crickets.
Because they don’t want training for the sake of marksmanship or responsibility, they want mandated training as a barrier to gun ownership. The longer, more expensive, and more inconvenient, the better.
I’d even go a step further and say, they’d have been happier if that In-N-Out — or the whole strip mall it was located in — were a “Gun-Free Zone” and NOBODY had been able to shoot back. As a second prize, they’d have been happier if the police had mistaken Mr. Salinas for the attacker and shot him on sight, so they can tout how dangerous and irresponsible it is for non-cops to respond. Whatever gives them more blood to dance in to request donations and demand more “gun control” laws. Ghouls.
Something struck me about that video, just as it did in the case of the shooter in Cambridge, MA recently. We have a shooter standing in front of cars, calmly taking aim and firing. And the cars seem to be stationary.
Why? I believe my reaction in this case would be to floor it, preferably aimed right at the criminal. It’s called “justified deadly force” — that doesn’t just mean a firearm, a car will serve too. Floor it and duck below the dashboard may be helpful.
Agreed.
A clip that I saw showed him firing into a parked, and empty Tesla. At an In-N-Out. It goes to the mindset, and so I think that, right there, we have a profile on the guy, and a very likely motive.
But tactically, yes, a vehicle can be an effective weapon. We see several cases of the effective use of vehicles as weapons on the ASP Channel on YouTube.
I believe it was Jeff Gonzales wrote Mercedes Benz puts that nice sight right on the front of the hood.
“You would think the anti-gun people would know this and realize sending bullets in the direction of violent criminal[s] would be better than making laws to ban guns.”
I believe that this statement is in error, as it misconstrues the situation entirely.
What you and I think is “better” is not at all what people of a criminal mind (corrupt politicians and those who support them or cheer them on) think is “better”.
No, it is not in any way “better”, in the criminal mindset, if bullets are sent in the direction of criminals. In that mindset, it is “better” if you and I are disarmed, and, one way or another, gotten rid of so that they can be “free” and unchallenged.
If you consider the mindset that is at work here, you must realize that a person who has adopted, or become sympathetic to, the criminal mind will be personally offended to learn that a law-abiding gun owner shot a criminal: and not only offended, but frightened AND angry. Therefore, in their minds, in the minds of those that cheer when a Tesla is vandalized, when a Christian-owned fast food restaurant is attacked, the minds that celebrate when police are defunded, or when even a marginally conservative president is shot at, or a conservative speaker at a university is murdered, the notion of one of us shooting a criminal (shooting one of their own, mind you) is a terror and an outrage! It only proves to them what they already knew; that the law-abiding population MUST be disarmed, by whatever means necessary.
And once again I must point out that we all seek freedom (or what we think of as freedom). The problem however is that, while some people seek freedom FROM sin, other people seek freedom TO sin. There is absolutely no reconciling the two mindsets. Their metrics are incompatible, and their math is used for solving entirely different problems, for entirely different purposes, from an entirely different point-of-view. The two mindsets (and there are only two) are mutually exclusive.
Therefore, we can give a sure, confident answer to Rodney King’s famous plea, “Why can’t we all just get along?”, by saying, THAT is why.
And so, the oft-used phrase, “We all want the same things, we just disagree on how to get there” is utterly false, misleading, AND it is the mindset of certain failure for those on the lawful side, and for guaranteed success for those on the lawless side because it puts the law-abiding side into a state of suicidal tolerance, wherein an enemy cannot be seen as a enemy, but as someone with common interests.
We all want to be left alone, for sure, but criminals will never leave us alone, and we are on the path to failure if we conclude that we can afford to leave them alone.
We can certainly call them to repentance, and a few do repent, but we canNOT get along with them so long as they hold an ideology that, let’s face it, wants us as dead as they tried to make Jesus.
Now, lately, some of the leftist agitators have been advocating, somewhat, for the second amendment. For how, after all, are they going to kill all the Charlie Kirks, Trumpists, ICE agents, Elon Musks, and fight off all the conservatives, Christians and capitalists if they’re not armed? They still want you disarmed, of course, but, “Good for me and not for thee” is a concept they’ve adopted long ago.
“You would think the anti-gun people would know this and realize sending bullets in the direction of violent criminal would be better than making laws to ban guns.”
There are two kinds of anti-gun people:
1) those in it for reasons that have nothing to do with policy, such as “scoring with crazy lefty chicks” or “virtue-signaling to my people”
2) Evil people who want control and power and don’t mind a large body count of other people to achieve it
That’s it. That’s all there are. If you support gun control in *almost* any form, you are in at least one of those groups.
The “almost” exceptions are few and very specific. The only one I know of that can be implemented reasonably without easy, large-scale abuses is restricting the gun rights of those convicted of violent crimes, based on their own history of behaviour, and the edge cases there are still poor.
As such, no, I would NOT think that of anti-gun people, as they don’t actually care about that stuff. That’s not what gun control laws are about.
I know some women, including a state legislator, who are afraid of guns. They want them removed from the planet and (probably) “uninvented.”
Back in college, I remember a young woman fondly imagining the world without any iron in part because of the unlikely possibility of guns in such a world. She said she would give up cars, trucks, skyscrapers, and steel bridges all to rid the world of guns.
So, I guess there is a third type of anti-gun person. The crazies.
No, that would still be the first one: “those in it for reasons that have nothing to do with policy”. I should have listed “they are just bats__t insane” as one of the examples.
A habit I adopted while “working the street” is, first, observe the proximate area while approaching the vehicle, then upon entering the vehicle, start the engine, step on the brake and put the transmission in drive. *
Then fasten the seat belt, turn the radios up, turn the AC on, etc.
I was once asked why I do that; the answer is “I’m cycling the weapon to ‘active’.” “But you carry a gun…”
I ‘splained, “Why would I want to exit the vehicle and engage in a gunfight when I’m sitting in a (somewhat bullet resistant) 4200 lb 260 HP weapon? It’s faster to drive over his ass, and probably about as effective.”
And, a thought….there are signs lots of places declaring that location as a “Gun Free Zone.” Some businesses – very few – have the humorous sign advising “guns are welcome, please keep them holstered unless necessary, and then accurate marksmanshup will be
appreciated.”
I doubt many businesses would eagerly advertise that they welcome legally carried guns; too many hoplophobes who would take their money elsewhere. But, were a company to do so, a sign stating something like “Optional Bi-Directional Range in Effect” would get the point across, with, possibly, the Hops not even knowing what that meant.
But we would.
* This process assumes one is cognizant of what John MacDonald’s Travis McGee character called “combat parking” – always drive through to the second space or back into spaces if that’s not possible, rather than the sheep-like “nose-in parking.”
Related, Greg Ellifritz has posted on “shopping center parking,” referencing not just the concept of combat parking but also suggesting parking farther out so there are empty spaces around one’s vehicle.
And, RE: “drive-throughs;” avoid them; you’re much better off parking and walking inside. If they must be used, always pick the outside lane so you have an escape route, and don’t be shy about leaving LOTS of space – aka “maneuver room” – between you and the car in front, and none at all between your door and the building pulling up to the window.
How about “Optional Bi-Directional Mass Transfer Zone” ?
The Travis McGee parking philosophy I recognize and adhere to whenever possible. I also park in an area where there are no cars or very few. If I’m parked out by myself and I see another ‘shopper’ headed towards me, I think; “What car is he going to?”
Also, I avoid drive throughs as much as possible. The exception being ferrying my wife and her gf’s home from the wine bar. They demand fries and shakes from the DQ.
We still don’t know the full details from the Twin Falls incident, but the murderer was not hit by return fire(?), he chose to end his life when his apple cart was upset.
Even if Salinas wasn’t successful in stopping the incident, by scoring hits, his actions were successful by challenging the murderers supremacy.