TexasCHLforum.com

Three men began firing into a crowd at a soccer tournament in Delaware yesterday, wounding three. People in the crowd then pulled their own weapons and returned fire, killing one of the shooters. The other two shooters are in the hospital, one in critical condition.

Here's an example of people with a CHL stopping a shooting that could have been much worse.

http://www.delawareonline.com/article/2 ... ck_check=1

The media gives very little publicity to these real events as they want us all disarmed.

Do we know that this is CHLs defending themselves, or gang-on-gang violence?

I'm searching ... all I see is

some people in the crowd fired back

http://news.google.com/news/story?pz=1& ... =d&start=0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Nothing new there. All the stoies quote the same person, Nancy Dietz.

One other says "...multiple shots were fired by various parties..."

No mention of CHL status at all.
sounds like a gang rivalry to me.

Maybe it will settle out by tomorrow and we'll get "the rest of the story".

CHL holders.......

barstoolguru wrote:CHL holders.......

What's so funny?

not one in the bunch was carrying legal.... gang land shootings

barstoolguru wrote:not one in the bunch was carrying legal.... gang land shootings

I was not because of the shooting but to think any were legal. you noticed the article said nothing either way

barstoolguru wrote:not one in the bunch was carrying legal.... gang land shootings

And what makes you so sure they were gang members? The article doesn't say either way.

Keith B wrote:

barstoolguru wrote:not one in the bunch was carrying legal.... gang land shootings

And what makes you so sure they were gang members? The article doesn't say either way.

What other reason would 3 men show up for a soccer game and start shooting into a crowd?
It has gang retaliation all over it, and it just so happens that three people just standing around at soccer game happen to have guns too (in Delaware no less) and returned fire. It didn’t say they were sporting gang colors too but I bet they were.

Just out of curiosity I looked up what it took to get a CHL in Delaware and outside of the $400+ the process looks like a lengthily one so we can ASSUME none of them had one or the article would have pointed that out.

One thing I can say after reading numerous news articles on shootings is they never want the truth to come out because of political ties to the papers. WHAT IF the paper said GANG BANGER shoot up soccer field. What do you think would happen to organized soccer when people don’t feel safe anymore?

more guns and less people

delaware ccw forum on the ccw process
http://deccw.com/index.php?topic=7.0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

barstoolguru wrote:

Keith B wrote:

barstoolguru wrote:not one in the bunch was carrying legal.... gang land shootings

And what makes you so sure they were gang members? The article doesn't say either way.

What other reason would 3 men show up for a soccer game and start shooting into a crowd?
It has gang retaliation all over it, and it just so happens that three people just standing around at soccer game happen to have guns too (in Delaware no less) and returned fire. It didn’t say they were sporting gang colors too but I bet they were.

Just out of curiosity I looked up what it took to get a CHL in Delaware and outside of the $400+ the process looks like a lengthily one so we can ASSUME none of them had one or the article would have pointed that out.

One thing I can say after reading numerous news articles on shootings is they never want the truth to come out because of political ties to the papers. WHAT IF the paper said GANG BANGER shoot up soccer field. What do you think would happen to organized soccer when people don’t feel safe anymore?

more guns and less people

delaware ccw forum on the ccw process
http://deccw.com/index.php?topic=7.0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Way to early to speculate on anything. Will wait until they give more info.

Keith B wrote:

barstoolguru wrote:

Keith B wrote:

barstoolguru wrote:not one in the bunch was carrying legal.... gang land shootings

And what makes you so sure they were gang members? The article doesn't say either way.

What other reason would 3 men show up for a soccer game and start shooting into a crowd?
It has gang retaliation all over it, and it just so happens that three people just standing around at soccer game happen to have guns too (in Delaware no less) and returned fire. It didn’t say they were sporting gang colors too but I bet they were.

Just out of curiosity I looked up what it took to get a CHL in Delaware and outside of the $400+ the process looks like a lengthily one so we can ASSUME none of them had one or the article would have pointed that out.

One thing I can say after reading numerous news articles on shootings is they never want the truth to come out because of political ties to the papers. WHAT IF the paper said GANG BANGER shoot up soccer field. What do you think would happen to organized soccer when people don’t feel safe anymore?

more guns and less people

delaware ccw forum on the ccw process
http://deccw.com/index.php?topic=7.0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Way to early to speculate on anything. Will wait until they give more info.

update: the people that were shot were targets of the shooters. it has all the sounds and smells of a gang style hit

http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?secti ... id=8728451" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Never could happen in Texas --

This incident was at a "professional sporting event," where we law abiding Texans, who also happen to be CHL holders, would be unarmed targets -- by legislation.

CHL holders would have to be protected by non-CHL "criminals" who illegally carried and who would be in a position to respond in defense of such an attack.

Still no word on who returned fire yet in that particular incident

Could be
1) LEOs
2) People who open carry
3) CCDW holders
4) someone else

http://deccw.com/index.php?topic=1769.0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I enjoyed the second and third posts