I guess stopping a shooting spree doesn’t make you a hero

18 Dec
I guess stopping a shooting spree doesn’t make you a hero

Or at least that is what the press would have us believe.

The anti gun media, with their sensationalism will go on and on about how unarmed people acted bravely as they died at the hands of a lunatic, but nary a word about an armed person stopping a massacre before it barely begun.

I’m speaking of the actions displayed by Nick Meli.  Actions that gun control zealots and the media would have you believe didn’t exist.  You see, before the Gun Free Zone facilitated 27 murders in Newtown Connecticut, there was an attempted mass murder clear across the country in Portland Oregon.

A masked man stormed into the Clackamas Mall and opened fire, killing 2 and injuring 1.  The shooter had no intentions of stopping.  That is when Nick Meli made his move, drew his concealed pistol and lined the shooter up in his sights.

As with many of these rampage shooters, they are cowards.  They will cull unarmed sheep, but when they find any resistance  or have to look down the barrel f a gun themselves, their cowardice is revealed and they often times flee or shoot themselves.

In this case, it was the latter.  Nick Meli didn’t fall into the caricature that gun control crowd draw of gun owners. He didn’t launch a salvo of bullets at the killer, he didn’t think himself some vigilante praying to use his gun.  He was a guy just trying to help.

He saw that there was people behind his target and that if he missed he may hit them.  He positioned himself in a store and waited for his shot.  The killer opted to take his own life. Nick Meli saved countless lives that day.  But apparently, that isn’t sexy enough for the national media.

And in ignorance and a bit of outlandish blind eye turning, the gun control zealots do not even allow that such a thing as using a gun to stop a mass murder is possible.  Not only is it possible, but it happens, yet unless you live near and hear it on the local news, you would be led to believe that such things are a fantasy of gun rights activists.

I’m don’t want to take away any praise for a teacher who saved her students by shielding them, but why do we only praise unarmed victims who have to die for the propagation of Gun Free Zones?  Why can we not also praise the good Samaritan, who was armed with a gun, who not only lived, but saved dozens (if not hundreds) of lives himself?

Pompous blowhards like Bloomberg contend that having a gun when someone is on a murder spree will have no benefit.  Perhaps Bloomberg doesn’t view saving the lives of children at the cost of his own agenda as a benefit…but I do.

What can one sheep dog do when a wolf descends?  More than the sheep can do alone.


Posted by on December 18, 2012 in Uncategorized


62 responses to “I guess stopping a shooting spree doesn’t make you a hero

  1. Gil

    December 18, 2012 at 10:31 am

    Maybe Bloomberg should give up his armed security detail then, if the thinks having someone armed isn’t the answer. Typical hypocritical nutbag.

    • Tony Oliva

      December 18, 2012 at 10:32 am

      That’s a perfectly logical argument Gil. As such, Bloomberg will ignore it completely.

    • Mr.Bill

      December 20, 2012 at 8:40 am

      Wake up Gil, can’t you understand some animals are more equal ?

  2. maxfubarproductions

    December 18, 2012 at 10:37 am

    As per usual, anything to demonize everything that protects the citizen from criminals, professionals and politicians alike.

  3. Oregon Media Watchdog

    December 18, 2012 at 10:43 am

    Thanks for the link back to my blog. I encourage your readers to view the full interview with Nick. He’s a level headed dude and he absolutely saved lives last Tuesday.

    • Tony Oliva

      December 18, 2012 at 10:56 am

      Not a problem OMW, it’s a good story that needs to be told. I’m glad to you are out there telling it.

  4. ian1775

    December 18, 2012 at 10:45 am

    Logic? What is logic when I feel you are wrong?

  5. Nate

    December 18, 2012 at 11:12 am

    My choice is to make every attempt to convince the local schools to allow specially trained employees, ( principal, counselor, secretary ) to carry concealed. There is a school in texas that already allows this. this will give the school a way to protect themselves instantly instead of being forced to wait up to 10 minutes for police.

  6. Maggie Rose

    December 18, 2012 at 11:46 am

    “Nick Meli saved countless lives that day. But apparently, that isn’t ‘sexy’ enough for the national media.” ?? it wasn’t SEXY enough?! …whoever wrote this; you might want to do some spell checking.. If you meant to say “sexy” then you really need to brush up on your vocabulary…

    • Tony Oliva

      December 18, 2012 at 11:52 am

      Definition #3 excitingly appealing; glamorous: a sexy new car.

      I used the term sexy because it was correct in the context, appropriately used. My vocabulary is fine and perhaps a bit more well rounded than yours, but thank you for your concern.

    • John Smith

      December 19, 2012 at 8:25 pm

      Shut up.

  7. Conner

    December 18, 2012 at 12:05 pm

    lol^ well spoken articles, i have quoted you many times.

  8. T.A.

    December 18, 2012 at 2:53 pm

    If Nick had open fired and the back drop was people hiding and he killed one then what? Police are trained to react to something like this, is Nick trained?

    • msalzbrenner

      December 18, 2012 at 3:56 pm

      Seriously? You honestly believe that Nick could have put any of these people in any MORE danger than they already where? Lets see. A psychotic killer spraying bullets ANY WHICH WAY IS POSSIBLE, or a responsible, controlled individual projecting bullets AT THE PSYCHOTIC KILLER. Hmmm wonder which of these two is causing the most danger to the “innocent bystanders”? Your level of ignorance is beyond words.

      • Jesse

        December 18, 2012 at 10:05 pm


      • John Smith

        December 19, 2012 at 8:29 pm

        T.A is an ignorant dumbshit. msalzbrenner, you hit the nail right on the head. Couldn’t have worded it any better.
        And T.A. (the dumbshit), yes he is trained. Or he wouldn’t have a CCW. Where do these idiots come from? Talking to them is like speaking spanish to a mentally challenged poodle.


      December 18, 2012 at 6:42 pm

      Are you a cop? Because i’m a 15 year law enforcement veteran, a Law Enforcement Firearms Instructor, Use of Force, and Defensive Tactics Instructor…….I’ll be happy to answer this question. Many members of the public are as skilled or more skilled than many police officers. The notion that ‘only the police should have guns’ is idiotic, and that’s my professional opinion, on what do you base yours? TeeVee?

    • Stand With Arizona (@StandWithAZ)

      December 19, 2012 at 3:01 pm

      Are you trained in logic? Without Nick, there would be 20 dead instead of 2.

    • therealguyfaux

      December 25, 2012 at 4:49 pm

      You mean, like the coppers outside the Empire State Building back in August?
      Let’s see- how many innocent bystanders went to the hospital in Oregon? Zero.
      How many in New York? Nine, none mortally, thank heaven for small favors.
      You almost had an incident in which it was the NYPD who would have been perpetrating the massacre. I’ll take a civilian who knew enough to know he had to be able to draw a bead, without endangering anyone else, anyday.

  9. The Orthodox Catechumen

    December 18, 2012 at 3:08 pm

    Reblogged this on The Ruminations of an Orthodox Catechumen and commented:
    The anti gun media, with their sensationalism will go on and on about how unarmed people acted bravely as they died at the hands of a lunatic, but nary a word about an armed person stopping a massacre before it barely begun.

    I’m speaking of the actions displayed by Nick Meli. Actions that gun control zealots and the media would have you believe didn’t exist. You see, before the Gun Free Zone facilitated 27 murders in Newtown Connecticut, there was an attempted mass murder clear across the country in Portland Oregon.

  10. betty

    December 18, 2012 at 3:54 pm

    Am I missing something? It sounds like he wanted to save lives, but technically didn’t. The shooter took his own life. Sorry…

    • Tammy Burgess

      December 18, 2012 at 5:27 pm

      The way that I read this story is that the gunman knew there was a gun on him and rather than be taken in, he took his own life.

    • sgtmac_46

      December 18, 2012 at 6:45 pm

      Allow me to explain, for those who don’t get it……..He only shot 2 people, he clearly intended more……..In EVERY mass shooting case like this in the last 20 years the shooter IMMEDIATELY suicides out or surrenders upon FIRST contact with resistance, typically the police……Universally that is true, they do not want the confrontation out of the fear of being incapacitated and captured. It is extremely likely, given that he immediately suicided out after contact with this gun owner (who he likely thought was a cop), that his mere armed PRESENCE triggered his default self-destruction based on the idea that the gig was up. Is that clear enough?

      • Jesse

        December 18, 2012 at 10:10 pm

        Clear as crystal!

      • betty

        December 19, 2012 at 10:42 am

        Totally didn’t see those 2 paragraphs…interesting. And you totally didn’t need to sound like an ass. Is there footage of this nick guy saving the day? Probably why you don’t hear about it.

  11. Larry Walther

    December 18, 2012 at 4:35 pm

    Good article. Thanks for shining a light!

  12. Andrew

    December 18, 2012 at 6:23 pm

    So, I gather from reading all these posts and correct me if i’m wrong, your bottom-line argument of logic for your position is this: a society where most law-abiding adults are carrying firearms in their day to day lives will ultimately result in a safer society, with less innocent people being killed with firearms?

    You think that if everyone, at every mall, in every car, in every office in America, was armed, you’d have a safer, more free country?

    You really don’t see any flaws in this argument?

    • sgtmac_46

      December 18, 2012 at 6:48 pm

      Well, given that more people are walking around armed today than 25 years ago, that the society wide homicide rate has steadily declined, despite more armed people, that reality would tend to refute your theories……..See, that’s the funny thing about theories in your head……They don’t necessarily reflect reality even if they ‘make sense’ to you. CCW’s UP, homicides down. The only argument you really have is that CCW’s had no effect on the decline in homicides, but that defeats the gun control argument as well.

      Here’s why you’re wrong, and what is wrong with your intuition……You think guns are ‘bad’, so the more ‘guns’ the more ‘bad incidents’. Guns are inanimate objects. Most folks walking the streets are good, decent, moral people…….The more GUNS, the more guns in the hands of, get this, wait for it……GOOD, DECENT, MORAL people……..Bad guys already have guns, folks intent on ill will already have guns, they don’t care about the signs at the front of the store or the law.

      So the problem is that this isn’t logical, the problem is your interpretation of ‘logic’.

      • FactsPlis

        December 19, 2012 at 2:34 am

        What’s wrong with this arguement is correlation versus causation. You suggest that CCW cause a decline in homicides that of 25 years ago, when in reality it is a mere correlation. The decline in homicides is due to the decline of criminals thanks to programs, tighter law enforcement, and arguably (heartens me to say this) abortion.

      • Andrew

        December 20, 2012 at 9:19 am

        Its you that needsto brush up on how logic works. Your argument holds no water. Zero. By your “logic” the decline in homicides could also be due to the proportionate decrease in black and white tvs. You mistake correlation for causation. In fact a more likely correlation is that the decreased crime rate is, in part, a direct result of Roe Vs Wade. More abortions = less unwanted children. Less unwanted children = less children in poverty = less crime. There is zero evidence, zero, that people carrying guns prevents crime. Far more people die from domestic gun violence and gun accidents than perps being killed during a home invasion. In fact that is fairly rare. And considering the amount of guns in homes and the number of B&Es that alone is pretty damning evidence against your position. The fact is you are the zealot, like a believer of god you have no intention of changing your position regardless of the evidence in front of you. I, on the other hand, as a man of science and rationality would change my position if the evidence suggested otherwise. So far it does not. Gun deaths are caused by guns. The US is OFF THE CHART in terms of the number of guns and the number of him deaths when compared to the rest if the free world. Why are you proud of this? Americans have a long history of acting against their own best interests. The founders of your country would pale at the perversion of thier words. The 2nd amendment referred to flintlocks and muskets. Had they know what was to be I’m sure they would have been more clear.

      • I'm with stupid

        December 23, 2012 at 5:45 pm

        Thanks for the breath of common sense.

      • joe

        December 21, 2012 at 1:30 pm

        some people don’t get it ever!

  13. kcb

    December 18, 2012 at 6:27 pm

    Here’s where I think you’re missing the point. Why was it necessary for someone to have to stop someone from using an assault weapon? If we ban assault weapons, not legally acquired hand guns, then it will be significantly more difficult for people to acquire them (right now you can purchase them at any gun show). This is not a black or white, guns or no guns issue.

    • sgtmac_46

      December 18, 2012 at 6:52 pm

      Well, kcb, the worst mass shooting was Virginia Tech, carried out with 9mm handguns…….Nobody has made the case that so-called ‘assault weapons’ make these shootings worse, that’s simply not the case…….If the last guy used an ‘assault weapon’ and the other guys used a gun to kill even more people, there’s no logic that banning ‘assault weapons’ or ‘high capacity magazines’ or any of the solutions du jour would do a darn thing to stop these incidents.

      Further, you will not ‘ban’ ‘assault weapons’ you will simply ban further sales to the public, but they already exist, so nothing you do is going to stop that.

      Ultimately, if you truly BELIEVE that guns are the problem, you are forced to admit that ALL guns are the problem……..The ‘I don’t want all the guns’ line is bogus……..If you believe in gun control, you ultimately have to acknowledge that ALL guns are the target.

      The purpose of an ‘Assault Weapons’ ban is not to stop a weapon that is the ‘most dangerous’……The fact is that ‘Assault Weapons’ are used in less than 1% of all violent crimes involving guns. The handgun is responsible for the majority of murders in this country. But ‘Black Rifles’ are scary to the public, and hence represent ‘low hanging fruit’ for the gun grabbers…….They need a victory to build momentum toward their ultimate goal of European style society wide banning of ALL firearms……..But one category at a time.

      • mav1ms

        December 19, 2012 at 7:14 am

        SgtMac I would also add that the two largest “mass murders” in the last 30 years in this country came from a fertilizer bomb and box cutters.

    • David Hunt

      December 19, 2012 at 12:42 am

      The government can’t keep hard drugs out of maximum security prisons, and “it will be significantly more difficult for people to acquire them (guns)”. Are you delusional? Prohibitions never stops anything from being available to a criminal with the will to commit a crime. Smoke some pot, engage a prostitute, find a bookie to place an illegal bet, etc. I guess if one is a law abiding citizen, one has no concept whatsoever of how very easy it is to acquire illegal contraband, if one only has the criminal intent to do so. Gun violence is NOT about the easy availability of guns. See Switzerland and New Zealand for countries with far more guns per capital and largely non-existent gun violence. With the banning of Guns, actual Gun violence has gone UP in England and Australia! You do know that assault weapons were ALREADY illegal in Connecticut don’t you. You do know that their illegality would have done Absolutely Nothing to have stopped this massacre as the perpetuator stoled them after killing his own mother. Absolute no set of laws could have stopped this child killer from getting access to guns if this was the extent of his criminal intent. CRIMINAL INTENT is the threat here,… not the possession of a guns.

  14. John R McCain

    December 18, 2012 at 8:13 pm

    Do Mayor Bloombergs body guards carry guns? Why? If they will have no affect in a shootout.

  15. JB

    December 18, 2012 at 8:14 pm

    For the entire story, compiled from over three hours of interviews with Nick, Casey, and Ashley take a look at:—The-Full-S.html

  16. Katherine Rhee

    December 18, 2012 at 10:56 pm

    If you want to represent well, you need to proofread! “barrel f a gun”, “Nick Meli didn’t fall into the caricature that gun control crowd draw of gun owners”, “He saw that there was people…” Would make a better impression if you could compose your sentences correctly. Agree with you if the story is accurate-jury still out.

  17. Keith Farrugia

    December 19, 2012 at 4:38 am

    This guy was there before the shooting and lives near by…

    • Lee

      December 20, 2012 at 5:50 am

      Keith, you are undeniably STUPID! And as we all know, you can’t fix Stupid!
      I think you just like to hear yourself talk. Why didn’t he rush the guy you stated? Why don’t you attend the Fun House the NYPD Training facility uses. You will learn how stupid you sound!

    • therealguyfaux

      December 25, 2012 at 5:17 pm

      It is possible that the CCW permit holder was tossed by the police when leaving the mall, as they generally do, to try to prevent accomplices (if any) from slipping away, and had to account for why (A) he wasn’t some “second shooter” in a terrorist or Columbine-esque incident, and (B) why, if he was armed, he didn’t intervene. His story to the cops may have had the unfortunate status of having been given while his adrenaline was still pumping and may not have been completely coherent, as a result. I suspect the truth is that he may not have been able to steady his grip, and, if you have ever seen the segment on Mythbusters, “Knife to a Gunfight,” unless you can stay far enough away from an armed person that you can raise your gun, point, aim, and discharge without being struck in return, you cannot be sure you will walk away unscathed; remember, the shooter could have still used the rifle as a bludgeon if he had been rushed. The prospective hero might not have been as well-versed in hand-to-hand combat,or he may have feared being disarmed, and incurring the shooter’s further wrath, if he “didn’t get it right the first time.” Just a few thoughts.

      • I'm with stupid

        December 25, 2012 at 8:32 pm

        No need to make assumptions.

        First, Nick Meli was interviewed for our local paper, the Oregonian and for various local tv stations.
        He did not, by that time, seem at all pumped. His story is very straightforward: he spotted the shooter, drew, aimed and held his fire because another person walked behind the shooter. The shooter apparently noticed him and moved out of his vision. Meli heard another shot and then silence. Since that was the last shot he heard, he assumed that was the one that killed the shooter, though he didn’t know, since he didn’t witness it, whether the shooter killed himself or was shot by someone else.

        End of story and, I hope, end of suppositions not based on evidence.

  18. Stacy

    December 19, 2012 at 6:39 am

    So what was the point of the video above? Just to tear down the accounts of someone who was actually there? Looks like just another listen to my opinion of something I didn’t see video to me.

  19. Seth

    December 19, 2012 at 10:21 am

    What a bunch of sick, twisted, fuck holes you are. Instead of trying to further your agenda, how about feeling for the victims in this tragedy. You make me sick and you are a shame to true Americans. Take a look in the mirror before posting your agenda-driven, hate-filled words. You disgust me.

    • Tony Oliva

      December 19, 2012 at 10:33 am

      (looks in the mirror) Hmmm…i could use a haircut…other than that I am comfortable with the face I see back at me. Your eloquent and soft spoken words have touched me. They remind me of the viciousness that the gun control zealots like to spew forth.

      You speak of “true Americans”…I assume you mean the ones like you. The kind of people who espouse: “Everyone should be free to say and think and do what they want as long as they agree with me” and if they don’t we will call them names and use vulgar language?


    • Larry

      December 19, 2012 at 10:40 am

      Seth, why not just say what you want. Get’er right out there as foul mouthed as you can, Atta boy. You might want to note, however, that you’ve left your left-wing comfort zone and are presently cussing gun advocates on a blog that advertises, right up front, to be a gun advocates’ blog.

  20. Bill Michtom

    December 19, 2012 at 11:30 am

    Things we don’t know: “The shooter had no intentions of stopping.”

    Why modern politics is so screwed: because the people arguing it have no idea what they’re talking about.

  21. Harry Dillema (@Harry_Dillema)

    December 19, 2012 at 11:49 am

    Yes, carrying a gun is one, but having a bunch of assault rifles available to a loonie on anti-psychotics is an entirely different story. And this is what the 2nd amendment currently allows.

    • Larry

      December 19, 2012 at 1:46 pm

      I have tried to avoid media coverage of this horrendous event but I don’t believe any “assault” weapons were used. There were semi-automatic handguns and rifles, but I believe “assault” refers to automatic, not semi-automatic, weapons. Please correct me of wrong – I won’t be offended with a polite correction to my premises. Thank you.

  22. Curry B Taylor

    December 19, 2012 at 9:34 pm

    If any of you want to friend Nick Meli, here he is:

    • Bill Michtom

      December 20, 2012 at 9:55 pm

      If there is “nary a word about” Nick Meli, where did this huge thread come from?

  23. Jim Yardley

    December 20, 2012 at 6:37 am

    At no time is the gun control machine concerned about protecting potential victims. They don’t care about the rights of those who wish to protect themselves or their families. They are not concerned about anything except removing the presence of guns from law abiding citizens — particularly from law abiding citizens who disagree with them on every aspect of their dreams for a tyrannical government that controls everything that we see, hear, eat, wear, every method we use to travel, where we work, how much we are paid, and what we are supposed to think.

    Think that’s an exaggeration? Look at North Korea, or Iran.

    If mass murders give them a chance to take away our means of defending ourselves, they will be more than happy to allow the deaths of thousands of children. They’re easy to replace, aren’t they?

  24. Dezab

    December 20, 2012 at 7:50 am


    Wikipedia is you friend:

    ssault weapon is a term which has been given many different meanings. One definition is any firearm using an intermediate cartridge.[1] Others might use the term to describe a semi-automatic gun that accepts detachable magazines that holds more than 10 rounds of ammunition.[2] The term is used popularly to describe any of various automatic and semi-automatic military firearms using an intermediate cartridge.

    I think “Assault Weapons” cover the semi-auto part.

    What I don’t understand is why more gun equals safety but less gun isn’t equals safety.

    We all know it worked so well during in the Cold war….-_-‘

  25. MaddMedic

    December 20, 2012 at 9:04 am

    Reblogged this on Freedom Is Just Another Word….

  26. Jeff

    December 28, 2012 at 11:06 am

    The anti-gun crowd activly disputes that Nick was the reason the shooter stopped. The claim “we can never know why” he stopped, and say we are the ones in fantasy land thinking (or claiming) it was because the shooter saw Nick and his gun.

    In their mind, the only way they will admit that a gun owner stopped a spree is if they shot the shooter. Even then, they will try to find a way to paint the legal gun owner as part of the problem.

    • I'm with stupid

      December 28, 2012 at 5:02 pm

      What proves you are living in fantasy land is your inability to use evidence and logic to reach a conclusion. Read (or watch the video of) what Meli said:

      What is the most important statement that Meli makes is this: “He said his extensive firearms training kicked into gear instantly. Without it, Meli alleges, he may have been quick to shoot, potentially injuring an innocent bystander.”

      Then there is the statement from the man who trained Meli, Chris Ceciliani, owner and instructor of Genesis Firearms Training: “‘In a gunfight situation, while working private security, your ultimate job is to observe and report,’ Ceciliani said. ‘That weapon — on your duty belt — is considered a tool, a self-defense tool to defend yourself or the life of others.’

      “‘Having a firearm in the home is not a bad thing when you properly know how to use it and store it, that’s the big one,’ Ceciliani goes on. ‘A lot of these crimes you hear about wouldn’t happen — I’m a firm believer — if these weapons were properly stored.'”

      Whether the knowledge that Meli was there made the shooter commit suicide IS beyond what we can know. As you clearly DON’T know, that one thing happened after another does NOT mean that one thing CAUSED the other.

      It is that kind of ignorance and unsupported certainty that makes people like you a menace.

  27. Consignment Sales

    April 9, 2013 at 9:12 pm

    Yet even in this section, ‘holy and enchanted’ line 14, hint
    at mystical aspects and connection with religious or magic powers.

    A few minutes later, the same time. Have you ever been alone in your tattoo design.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: