[Kharn]

UPDATE: Source for update (http://joemerchant24.blogspot.com/2007/12/report-from-westroads.html)
Well, Freedom Fiends, I just got back from Westroads and guess what I didn't find?

The rules of conduct signs were gone, leaving only marred paint and screw holes behind.


This is the main entry by at the food court. Notice the two blue dots? Those are plastic anchors where the sign used to be.
http://bp2.blogger.com/_HclHV5bwh4g/R1sSaxXuLwI/AAAAAAAAABE/np7VwdyOBGg/s400/IMG_0720.JPG


This is over by Dick's and JC Penney. Notice the marred paint in the shape of a sign?
http://bp3.blogger.com/_HclHV5bwh4g/R1sSRBXuLvI/AAAAAAAAAA8/xriCGsQ6Cq8/s400/Dicks.jpg


The signs at the Friday's and Panera entrances were also missing, leaving marred paint behind. Security was thicker, so no pics.

I did ask one nice security guard about the sign by Panera. His response was interesting...

"Yeah, there was a rules of conduct sign there, but they took it down. Not sure why, but they just took it down."

Curiouser and curiouser, eh Freedom Fiends?

On the upside, at least I wasn't breaking the rules about photos in the mall!!!

BTW: I also stopped by Oak View (the crosstown sister mall under the same management) and took better pics of their rules of conduct sign. I'll update that post next.

Stay safe;
xxxJM24xxx

Admins:
Sorry if this is a dupe, I searched for the NWJT moniker and found no threads.

Source link (http://joemerchant24.blogspot.com/2007/12/firsthand-account-of-von-maur-shooting.html)The Shack has the privilege of being able to talk with one of the witnesses from the third floor of the Von Maur store at Westroads Mall in Omaha.

On the condition of anonymity, he has agreed to tell his account of what happened. He will only be identified by the moniker NWJT.

I was given the first draft of this account Thursday morning, 12/6/07. The only changes that have been made were mostly grammatical and organizational. NWJT's account has not changed. He has opted to leave any inaccuracies (such as the gun identification) as it was originally written in order to properly show how the mind works in this condition.

I have agreed to post his story account as is, with only minor edits for spelling and grammar. The bulk of this was written about 14 hours after the event occurred. There is an update at the end.

His story presents an interesting issue for CCW holders in such a situation: Shoot or no shoot. Hide or flee. Help or don’t help.

Please look at the post after this account as I have put up a practice drill (The Von Maur Drill) that is designed based on this man’s scenario.

With that, I now turn the blog over to NWJT.



The shooting
I took a later lunch that day because I had a noon phone meeting with a company out of New York, apparently we’re not on the same lunch schedule. I also planned to take a one-hour lunch that day, instead of a 30-minute lunch, so I could go to Van Maur and pick up some gifts for my wife. We were both there on the evening of Dec 03 with my 1-year-old daughter, and my wife tried on some coats and showed me some bath robes she liked, so I knew exactly what I was going for that day.

I asked a co-worker (named K for this story) for directions to Van Maur from my place of business. as she knew a faster route that would get me there quicker.

I left work around 1:15 to 1:20 and arrived at the front doors of Van Maur at 1:35 (shooting -7), I remember specifically looking at my watch as walked in. I came in the south entrance to Van Maur, right by the elevators.

I proceeded to 2nd floor using the escalator around 1:36 (shooting -6 minutes). I soon picked up a coat that my wife liked. I spent a couple minutes there because I was still not completely sure about picking the white coat or black coat. I checked my watch and realized time was running out, so I picked the white one. This was about 1:39 (shooting -3).

Then I again took the escalator to the third floor.I went over to the bath robes near the bra section, which is by customer service. I was standing close to the north wall, by the east corner. I walked around the robes a bit to see if there were any last minute changes about what I wanted to get, then I proceeded to the rack of robes that my wife had expressed interest in.

At this point I don't have a time line, but the events unfolded follows:
I heard gunshots, about 8. I knew exactly what they were, but my brain didn't want me to believe it.

I looked towards the escalators because it sounded like they came from there. I could not place the direction the shots came from because I was surrounded by 4 walls and standing nearly in a corner.

I stood there for maybe 8 seconds (time enough to change a magazine), then I heard several more shots. Somehow, then I focused in on the shooter. He was towards the south wall, in the east corner, maybe 30 degrees to my left. He was about 30 yards away. He was shooting towards the west and I had a nice side view of him.
http://bp2.blogger.com/_HclHV5bwh4g/R1sgpxXuLzI/AAAAAAAAABc/ydY7kQmYo20/s400/VanMaur.jpg

He was wearing what looked like a solid green sleeveless vest, and was shooting a semi-automatic rifle. I could see sleeves of a shirt that did not match the vest. The vest did not look military or camouflage, but to me looked green.

To me, at the time, I thought the rifle might be an AR15. One thing I noticed, it appeared that the empty shells were ejecting out of the left side of the gun instead of the right, which doesn't make sense and could of been an illusion. All I could see were mostly the black parts of the gun. The stock of the gun was the black frame style, instead of a wood stock.

The shooter had brown or black hair, and I remember it being cut quite Short, but not buzzed. He had the gun up to his cheek and was shooting in rapid succession doing quick maneuvers with the gun. At first, It went through my mind that this guy was some sort of military and this was a terrorist attack. I could see the shells ejecting from the gun.

The way he was walking and shooting, calmly, no yelling, made me think that there was more than one shooter and they were performing a "clean sweep". He was aiming down the barrel of the gun, and shooting rapidly.

At this point, I stared for nearly 5 seconds, until I turned and ducked down and started running. I want to make note of this point in time, as I will come back to it.

I was running towards the north wall and somehow making my way farther towards the east wall at the same time, putting myself in the corner even more. There were maybe five people who started walking fast looking in the direction of the shooter. I am not sure if they could see him or just heard the commotion. When they saw that I was running like heck, others started running, too.

People were running into the dressing rooms. I got near the door and decided that is not where I wanted to be. I ran west a few yards uncertain of what to do or where to go. I was trapped. But then I focused in on an emergency exit and ran out of it. The alarm sounded. It was loud, but I think it was only an alarm attached to the door, not sure if it set the whole store alarms off, but they were loud shreiking alarms, not continuous, but a pulse type alarm.

I ended up in some gray hallway with a set of stairs and very little room to move side to side. I ran down one set of stairs to 2nd floor.

There was a door there and I almost went through it. But I heard more gunshots that sounded like they were on the other side of the door. I believe I turned and I jumped over the stair railing to the next landing, skipping the stairs completely. I do not remember the impact, and I do not remember if I jumped down a whole floor, or ran down the first half of the stairs and jumped down the rest. I am not certain of this point due to the fear I felt at this point after hearing more gunshots I thought was on 2nd floor, confirming in my mind there were multiple shooters.

I ran down a small hallway and found a door to the outside, but it would not open. It was a double door with a push bar. At this point, I had to make a decision. Do I wait here or get out?

I didn’t know what or who was on the other side of the door, and but I decided to go for it because I was trapped at the end of a hallway with no where to go. I pushed the door hard and it still would not give, so I kicked the push bar and the door flung open.

I was now outside, on Van Maur’s loading dock on the east side, I looked to my right and there was a long trash can close to the wall. I jumped over a rail, off the dock between the garbage can and the wall. I ran along this until I came to the end of both the garbage can and wall. I then realized that I was still carrying the coat I was going to by my wife. For some reason, I decided to drop it, and probably ruined it.

Then I ran out into the parking lot, which is between the mall and the parking garage. I didn’t know what to do next. I tried to call 911 on my phone with no luck. I yelled to some guy to call 911. Then I asked him if he had a gun I could use. I was freaking out, and in reality probably would not have gone back in. However, I was worried about someone picking off people in the lot, or coming out charging with guns firing. I had no idea how many shooters were in there.

I borrowed a lady’s cell phone, and she was worried I was going to run off with it. But 911 was busy, so I knew people were probably called. It took FOREVER for the cops to get there, I estimated the time as10 minutes but the news says 6.

During this time I did not know what to do. I almost just went for my car and left, but I realized that couldn’t be right. It was like someone pulled a fire alarm at the store, so I thought about just leaving and let everyone else figure it out. I decided that was the wrong thing to do..

I walked around to the north side and saw all the cops loading up. I yelled to them, “I saw what is going on. The guy has an M-16 type gun. If you need information, I can give it or else I am outta here.” A police lieutenant pulled me aside and I ended up in a cop car.

Minutes later another witness joined me. She said she was right beside me on the 3rd floor before the shooting. We were both very shaken up. My lungs were burning because I nearly did a full sprint down 3 floors. The cold air hit my lungs hard.

I was later taken to J.C. Penney and interviewed. At first, the interviewer was taking notes, but when he realized how involved I was I had start over, this time with a tape recorder running

I was then escorted to my car and I stopped back by work. I arrived at work around 4pm, which means my interview ended around 3:30 – 3:45.


My feelings

When I heard the first round of gunshots, I knew what they were but didn’t want to believe it. I tried to think that they were balloons or fireworks. However, I definitely took a defensive stance ready to run.

When I saw the shooter, I stood there for nearly 5 seconds just watching.

Why?

First, he was firing 90 degrees away from me. The thing is, this image was nothing new to me. I see people shooting all the time at the range, on TV, in video games. But what my brain was having a hard time processing was that was Van Maur.

Now back to the point I referenced earlier.

Honestly, and as God as my witness, when I saw him shooting and as watched for a few seconds trying to figure out what he was going to do and what I should do, the thought that when through my mind was, “If I had a gun, I have a perfect shot.”

Yes, a perfect shot. I had a full side profile, I was close, and no one was visible behind him execept a wall. I had a clear shot during the second round of fire. I told this to every cop I came in contact with. The interviewer agreed.

When I realized that I had no gun, fear instantly struck me, along with anger, and severe panic.

I ran hard.

I did not think to try to help people, I just got out.

While I was running, I kept hearing shots. In my mind, I could see myself getting shot in the back, bullets ripping through me and blood spraying in front of me.

Interestingly, I was still able to make decisions. I knew the dressing room was a bad place. When I realized I was trapped in a corner, more fear set in and I almost went for the dressing room, but then I saw the emergency exit.

I instantly started second-guessing that decision as well. For all I knew, there were more shooters waiting for people to try to escape. But realizing that I was wide open to attack, I ran out the emergency door.

As I ran down the stairs, all kinds of thoughts started occurring. What if a shooter was coming up the stairs? What if one followed me down? Every decision I made was second-guessed, should I just stop or keep going?

I kept going, and due to luck, I was fine. There was only one shooter, and he did not set any boobytraps.

Luck.

God.

Luck.

That’s all. My decisions were fairly limited and all I could do is go where the doors and hallways took me.

After my interview, as I was being escorted by the cops to my car, I saw the nice, white coat still there by the garbage can. I pointed it out to my interviewer who was escorting me, hoping maybe he’d let me go pick it up to possibly save it. But, it was a lost cause. I would have gone back later and paid for it.

This part of the story may be removed later, but I will have it here for now.

I do not have a Concealed Handgun Permit. I have completed the training class, but I keep putting off applying for the permit because I think it is useless. In the places I would need a gun most, I am not allowed to have it. I will not be a person living in fear and not go to Van Maur because they don’t allow guns.

My point that Open Carry needs to be easier in Omaha, and places like Westroads need to take down their “no guns” signs.

If I had my gun deeply concealed, I wouldn’t have been able to draw it very fast. However, If I had open carried, I could of drawn instantly.

Either way though, I could have drawn and taken a clean shot. However, in both cases, regardless of the laws, I am not allowed to carry a gun at all in Westroads Mall. If the laws did not oppress my rights, I would carry a gun most places (except work). I would certainly have had it in the mall as mall shootings have been on my mind since the incident at a mall involving a shotgun back in February.

My wife is somewhat cautious about guns as is my sister-in-law. After this event, both are now pro-guns. In addition, I will never again be caught without a gun.

I later learned from the news that people were shot at customer service (to my right) and the children’s section (in front of me, off to the left). This means it was only luck this guy did not target me, as I was closer to him than some of the people he shot. I have a second chance at life.

What really irks my gut is that I was just there at Van Maur on Monday night with my wife and daughter. What if they were with me this time? Escape like I did would not of been possible.

I am very angry at the city of Omaha and the mall for their stupid laws that nearly cost me my life. The laws protected no one, and in my opinion, caused people to die.

Will I go to the media? Maybe. I can’t make a decision now because I am still shaken up. I got very little sleep last night. I need to let my head clear. Nothing I do right now is going to change the outcome and near brush with death.

Right now I have been practicing with my .40 S&W Beretta, replaying the situation in my mind.

I could have done it, no problem, no hesitation, no regrets. This was a test of my soul, and the results are in and I know them for certain.

I am going to go buy some “gear,” then go to the shooting range for some target practice.

My knnee hurts and my legs and lungs still burn. I cannot recall how high of jump I took, but I am going back to Van Maur to find out.

UPDATE 12/6/07 - I went to a local shooting range and purchased several silhouette targets. I then put the targets down range, to the approximate place I think the shooter would have been.

It seems it may be between 40 and 50 meters based on my memory. I used my Beretta 90-Two (.40 S&W) and shot each target several times with 6 round magazines. I mostly aimed for the head because that is probably what I would have done in the mall, as I didn't know if he was wearing a vest or not.

My accuracy to the head was about 4 out of 6, depending on how fast I fired. For the shots I missed the head, they still hit the neck or the chest. A few test cases, I missed the head by an inch. I would of been shooting up at a slight angle so the missed shots would of went higher than most people stand.

I then took body shots and my accuracy was near 100% on the target, though not necessarily in the kill zone. I conclude I could have taken the shots with decent accuracy and been effective. I cannot predict the outcome, except that I would of rather been shooting at the killer, instead of crossing my fingers, turning my back, and running away. Even if I only wounded him, I could of run in closer for more accuracy. Call me crazy, it may be true, but running away like I did was more crazy and more risky with my life. I just got lucky.

I do want to say that when I talk about that I could of stopped the killer, I am not trying to make a political statement. I am simply saying if

I were allowed to carry a gun, I would have and I would have used it.

That is a hard fact. I am not trying to be a hero and say that I would

have tried to save lives. I am saying that I was trying to save my life,

and if my family was there, their lives as well. There is nothing

"hero" about what I am saying, it's about survival.


I feel that I am alive today because of luck. I chose to run, but it was not a choice. I was forced to run. Many will say that is the right choice. I say it is the choice that requires luck. ALOT of luck with the position I was in.

Use of deadly force at times may also require luck. But, it also depends upon skill, awareness, and practice. These are things I can control, and these are things I trust far more than luck
The statements I am making today are my own, and represent my personal views and my views alone. It may or may not be the views of my family, friends, employer, other professional affiliates, or anyone or thing affiliated with me in any way of form other than myself.
Very interesting insight into the thought process of another gunnie when the poo hits the fan.

Kharn

[politicalgeek]

Good luck seeing this on the media. Today was my first day of carrying concealed. It was empowering, I would honestly say it is one of the first times I have truly felt like a citizen.

So there is at least one theory to the "what ifs" that are flying around the various forums...

[dhoomonyou]

good read.

G-d Bless

[American_Pit_Bull]

This guy would have tried to take a head shot at 55 yards with a sidearm? Sounds like a good way to get yourself killed.

[HuntAndFish]

This guy would have tried to take a head shot at 55 yards with a sidearm? Sounds like a good way to get yourself killed.


And it begins. Have a gun = get killed. Pogo was right, we really are our own worst enemy in this argument.

The guy just proved to himself at the range that he could make the shot. Why are you doubting it TRAC?

[collector14]

That was the first "first-hand" account I've read. Very interesting.

[American_Pit_Bull]

And it begins. Have a gun = get killed. Pogo was right, we really are our own worst enemy in this argument.

The guy just proved to himself at the range that he could make the shot. Why are you doubting it TRAC?If he could shoot those groups at 55yards at a range, he might as well reduce his hit percentage by at least half when in a high stress encounter...
Then he is pitting a weapon that is not designed to accurately shoot at those distances against a weapon that makes a 55 yd. shot look like child's play. And once he does that, he becomes the target; with the deck stacked against him big time.

Just weighing the stated facts...

[geophysicishooter]

I used to target wamprats in my T-16 back home. They're not much bigger than two meters.

If you can't hit a cantelope from 50 yards, you need to practice more.

If you have the shot, take it, else wonder for the rest of your life how many of those lives lost you could have saved. Personally, and there may be a certain amount of machismo in play here, but I'd rather go to the gates saying I did what I could than having to say I got shot in the back running way with my gun in its holster or that I sat idly by while some lunatic emptied multiple 30 round clips into a crowd of christmas shoppers.

[siglite]

Would a 55 yard shot have been effective? Would you or I have taken it? Impossible to answer honestly, because no one can truthfully do so until they're in that situation. But one thing's for sure. It would've changed the game both at Van Maur, and for the rest of us, nation wide.

[LaVere]

No CCW is all about Financial liability not your rights to Carry a Gun.
(period)
The dead and injured at the Omaha Mall Will have a very tough time suing the mall in this shooting.They can and will say "It's not our fault sue the shooter" And he's dead and no deep pockets.
Now imagine if they say yes you CAN carry. Their liability go off the charts. They would never win in a law suit. They could not get insurance or the cost would be astronomically high the mall could not afford it and have to close.
I know that that sucks but that is what is is. Until the liability and tort laws in each of our state change we will never have a welcome CCW carry in malls and other places.
But if they just don't say anything maybe they would win maybe not. But by saying no they are for the most part in the clear. So why take the Financial risk.
If you have ever pro gun or 2nd or just supporters boycott an mall. Lets say 1000 persons in Omaha. 7 dead law suit each 5 Million =350 million/ 1000 boycotter's loss of sales. Thats $35,000 per person You do the rest of the math. The stand to loose $350 million.
Please let me state I am talking practical business here. Morally it is totally wrong not to let us protest our selves.
Here in Michigan NO Guns in a mall means that they can ask you to leave. If you leave that is the end of it.
Do I carry in a mall. Yes and if asked to leave I will.

[sacp81170a]

If he could shoot those groups at 55yards at a range, he might as well reduce his hit percentage by at least half when in a high stress encounter...

The thing is, he got 100% hits on the body, certainly doable at 50 yards. One or more hits may well have taken the fight out of the t*rd and saved somebody's life. We'll never know, will we?

[Evenflo76]

Any shot from any range would be effective. Someone throwing a fire extinguisher would have been effective. My parents could have been in that mall. I'll concern my self with liabilities after I know my loved ones are safe.

[LaVere]

Would a 55 yard shot have been effective? Would you or I have taken it? Impossible to answer honestly, because no one can truthfully do so until they're in that situation. But one thing's for sure. It would've changed the game both at Van Maur, and for the rest of us, nation wide.
As I posted in some other post. Could have I hit him? I don't really know. I'm 65 years old and not the shooter I once was. BUT 12 rounds of .40 SW at or near him (assuming clear background) 1. One may have hit him and saved many lives. 2. He would have had to taken cover again possible saving lives.
3. In any case The odds of saving live could have been improved with someone returning fire.
I never want to be tested in a situation like that. But at lease I can send 12 down range and have backup of 24 more if needed.

[Oana]

Fascinating first-hand account. Wow. This should be all over the media in its unaltered form. Not only the fact that if he had a gun he could have stopped the shooter, but that restrictions on the right to carry directly influenced his decision not to get a carry permit.

What I found interesting - although not surprising - is everyone's "deer in the headlights" response. And the fast-walking shoppers. Most people don't want to run out an emergency exit if they aren't 100% positive of what they heard. I mean, it would be embarrassing to hit the ground, start running, or set off the emergency alarm, right? As much as I hate to admit it, my first response to hearing shots in a situation like that would probably be to tense up, look around, and see, "where is that coming from? Are those really shots?" Instead of ducking, immediately acknowledging what I'd just heard, and running for an emergency exit.

[JohnKSa]

I think it's realistic to assume that a person with a CCW engaging a rifle shooter at ranges past 15 yards is at a SEVERE disadvantage. The only two cases I'm aware of that put a civilian CCW against a rifle shooter ended with the CCW'er dead or seriously wounded and the rifle shooter still ambulatory.

I don't think that's sufficient rationale for saying that a person with a CCW should always turn and leave in a similar situation. Sometimes it's not just about the odds of surviving.

[Grey54956]

50 yards, take the shot. Send a few downrange, then move quick.

50 yards isn't too bad. It's not the easiest thing in the world, but its possible. Besides, a haed shot isn't necessary. Just try for a hit. If anything, the one thing we've seen from these nutjobs is that if they are wounded, they'll usually turn the gun on themselves rather than being captured. So, any hit is effective.

[Wes Janson]

I don't know about anyone else, but I strongly believe that, for me, it would be an imperative to at least try. 8 rounds of .45 ACP might or might not do the job at 40 or 50 meters, but all it would take would be one half-decent hit to at least wound the shooter and slow him down. Better to gamble my life on my accuracy and maybe win than to let someone else take the same rounds, and have to live with the weight of that choice.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Allen_Wilson

Mark Wilson may not have survived, but his actions undoubtedly help to save lives. It's a true shame that so few news sources ever focused on his bravery that day.

[bogie]

This guy would have tried to take a head shot at 55 yards with a sidearm? Sounds like a good way to get yourself killed.

Heck, I could do that... No problem. Dump the first mag into the general area of his head/upper torso, drop it, and close distance while stuffing. 50 yards is NOT all that much of a distance. I've outshot an SKS group-wise at 75 yards before...

[Grey54956]

The Arroyo/Wilson incident resulted in Wilson's death, not because Arroyo was armed with a rifle and Wilson a pistol. Wilson scored several hits on Arroyo, who was wearing body armor at the time of the incident. I believe that we can assume that it Arroyo had not been wearing armor, he would have been seriously injured by Wilson's fire.

[Bighouse Doc]

I can clang the sheep gong at 200 yds with my 357 Ruger.

Hitting that retard wouldn't have been too difficult once I got into my bubble.

[MachIVshooter]

I can't possibly take into account the physical effects of such a situation and how they would affect accuracy. I can imagine that they would greatly reduce it. That said, I regularly practice with my primary CCW at a private range where I have 55 gallon barrels at the 100 yard line. Though I use targets at many distances and spend most of my pratice time walking aimlessly and then suddenly drawing from concealment to fire at a relatively close target, I also do a fair amount of practice standing in a modified Weaver and using two hands at 25, 50 and 100 yards. In that stance, I have no problem keeping all of those 10mm rounds in the intended barrel at the full 100 yards.

My carry:
http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n117/Hunter2506/Witness.jpg

Could I make a 50 yard handgun shot in a high-stress situation? I don't know, but I'd certainly try.

[Dave in PA]

I don't want to hijack the thread, but....

If I were to encounter a shooter situation, would I use my weapon to clear an escape route for my self and my companions (most likely wife and kids) or would I try to aproach and engage the shooter?

Think about that before you answer and look way down deep inside. I can honestly say that I don't know. I do know that if I need to, I feel that I can pull the trigger on a direct human threat. I'm ok with that, I have gone through training (ARMY training, SIR!) to do that. However I have not trained recently to approach and engage a threat. These are sobering thoughts, along with is my 380 'enough gun'. Hopefully I never have to find out.

[XD-40 Shooter]

That was a very good first hand account, good read. I like his mindset, if he'd had a gun, he would have at least attempted to wound/kill the attacker, take him out of the fight. I'm willing to bet that had he recieved some return fire, it would have stunned him for a few seconds, out of sheer surprise, then you can take that opportunity to empty the magazine into him. I figure 6 hits out of 12 with my XD-40 and 165 grain speer gold dot's would be the end of him. As long as the area behind the shooter is clear, take him out.

Having said this, I'm not sure if I would have attempted to approach the scumbag. Bringing a pistol to a rifle fight is an iffy proposition, just ask the FBI agents from the 1986 shootout. Its pretty much a moral/risk type of issue, do you want to risk exposing yourself and take him out for the benefit of others, saving their lives, or are you concerned about protecting yourself or you're loved ones, only engaging the perp if he approaches you directly. I'm torn on this issue, but I do believe that given a clear shot, I would take it.

[conrad carter]

A good number of people (Ken Hackathorn and others) state that they zero their hanguns at 50 yards. It's time to nail the skills down friends.

[Oana]

Another issue with engaging the BG is that even if you hit him, he *may* be wearing some form of body armor. And then if he turns around... :eek:

[American_Pit_Bull]

A good number of people (Ken Hackathorn and others) state that they zero their hanguns at 50 yards. It's time to nail the skills down friends.Ken is also a firearms instructor that teaches offensive tactics to LEOs, military, etc..., I would venture to believe that the great majority on this site train for defensive purposes.

[bogie]

I've changed more magazines _and_ done more malfunction drills than BOTH of the -should not be named- shooters fired shots in their entire lives. Front sight, line 'em up, squeeze, repeat until the shooter goes down, dump, run (okay, limp...), stuff, repeat sequence. If shooter goes down, insurance rounds.

[Ala Dan]

Thank you for a most excellent detailed report on the mall shooting. I'm
certainly glad that you were able to escape and evade all of the carnage.
Yes, its too bad that a qualified CCW licensee wasn't present to take Mr.
Hawkins out; and possibly save some innocent lives? Like you, I will not
patronize establishments that do not allow CCW carry; regardless of how
bad I may need what they sell. A practice of obeying posted "NO GUNS
ALLOWED" signs could be hazardous to your health~! :scrutiny: :eek: ;)

[peyton]

Doing my part 50 yards perfect score on a national match pistol course slow fire. I see the problem is the target is moving, your heart is pumping and someone is probably dying while you figure out if you can make the shot. Throw some lead, get them worried about where it is coming from. Mall, Iraq, it is the same, COMBAT, take the battle to the enemy. Now the people who died will not know the outcome but the people who LIVE will.

[RLsnow]

would i try to take him out and fail? or not try at all?...

no idea (really, i dont know)

[Kharn]

I forgot to mention, if CCWing and presented with that situation, I'd probably have been in the "dump a mag at him & bug out" camp. Most active shooters do not want to be captured alive, so let him think the cops are on their way and hopefully he'll shoot himself. Or I'd actually get a hit on him and hopefully slow him down enough that others can escape.

Ala Dan:
It wasnt me, just found it on the net.

Kharn

[30 cal slob]

being able to hit a bad guy with a handgun 50 yards away is one thing. it's definitely doable, with some practice.

doing that in a crowded mall under stress and not crossing or hitting somebody else is another story.

i once drew my CCW in a crowded area in an extremely anti-gun jurisdiction. the cops didn't end up charging me with anything, but gave me a stern lecture about the potential hazards of having a gun in a crowd. one officer investigating my situation asked EVERY SINGLE WITNESS (dozens!) if the muzzle of my pistol EVER CROSSED ANY INNOCENT. if i did that even ONCE, i would have been charged with ATTEMPTED MURDER. good thing the four rules of safe gun handling were pounded into my head and firmly ingrained.

having said that, i wish there would have been a CCWer nearby to plant a round in the ear of that creepy loser the second the weapon was shouldered.

[AK103K]

A practice of obeying posted "NO GUNS
ALLOWED" signs could be hazardous to your health~!
I have always found these signs to be defective. The shooter here seems to prove it.

It also seems to me, that if they post something like it, they assume all responsibility for your safety, if your foolish enough to follow them and something happens. Unless they are a government entity, immunity does not attach. If I was a victim or relative of a victim, I'd be wanting to know WHY it happened and WHY they did NOTHING. "Calling and waiting" for the police is the same as doing nothing. The police take reports.

I taught my kids at an early age, no one is as concerned about your personal safety more than you. So you can count on no one but yourself to take care of you. Do whatever it takes to do so.


I don't know about anyone else, but I strongly believe that, for me, it would be an imperative to at least try.
I agree.

[alucard0822]

think it's realistic to assume that a person with a CCW engaging a rifle shooter at ranges past 15 yards is at a SEVERE disadvantage. The only two cases I'm aware of that put a civilian CCW against a rifle shooter ended with the CCW'er dead or seriously wounded and the rifle shooter still ambulatory.


A disadvanage it might be, but I would rather have my M&P in hand than nothing, and so far if the CCWer tends to get killed or wounded when facing a rifle, the disarmed tend to get killed handily and in large numbers with nothing more than a pistol, much less a rifle. I do take comfort, that while situations like this are widely covered, they are akin to winning a terrible lottery. You are much more likely to die from a car accident, smoking or even a carjacking crackhead than by the one in a million mass murdering psycopath, but practice every conceavable scenario I can, live firing weekly, and with plenty of dry fire practice just about daily.

A practice of obeying posted "NO GUNS
ALLOWED" signs could be hazardous to your health~!

MD is a big "no guns/CCW for the privelaged only" state, so I spend very little time here outside of work, and home(where I carry on my own property), PA is 15 minutes away, and has reciprocity with my FL CHL permit. If I am in a state where violating a "no weapons" sign results in the establishment asking you to leave, I carry concealed, but vote with my dollar, and try to shop where CC is not discouraged.

A 50yd shot would be about the same angle as hitting a 10" tall GI joe at 21ft, a shot that does require practice, but is not all that difficult to make, and made regularly in several shooting and hunting disciplines, where a full size handgun may be required to shoot a target 200+ meters away. My local range allows pistols on the rifle line, and I often practice with my carry gun (M&P 9c) at ranges up to 100 yards, offhand and supported by cover, and have learned over time where to hold the sights at various ranges, and enjoy hangun hunting with my 6" taurus 44mag.

As far as the effects of stress and adrenaline, I cannot say how it would affect me, but I would hope that I have trained enough through target practice, Ayoob's stress fire system, and mental conditioning that I would at least be able to revert to my training for guidance when SHTF. There are also millions of upstanding and law abiding citizens with military training and combat experience, who have their CHL. If I were in the mall, and had a gun, I would have tried to fire, then cover, fire then cover, untill I could confirm a hit, or had to move. If my family was there, I would try to cover their escape if possible, or hide them behind me in a spot where the shooter would have to get close, then past me and a slide locked pistol to get to them.

[Malamute]

"Quote: This guy would have tried to take a head shot at 55 yards with a sidearm? Sounds like a good way to get yourself killed."

"And it begins. Have a gun = get killed. Pogo was right, we really are our own worst enemy in this argument.

The guy just proved to himself at the range that he could make the shot. Why are you doubting it TRAC? "

If he could shoot those groups at 55yards at a range, he might as well reduce his hit percentage by at least half when in a high stress encounter...
Then he is pitting a weapon that is not designed to accurately shoot at those distances against a weapon that makes a 55 yd. shot look like child's play. And once he does that, he becomes the target; with the deck stacked against him big time.

Just weighing the stated facts..."



I think you're right. Better to just roll over and play dead. No point doing something that MAY not work out. Besides, everyone knows it's unrealistic to practice beyond 7 yards, as this is the distance that __% of all gunfights occur at. So what if he can actually make the shot at the range. He probably couldn't do it in real life, so why try.


Sorry. Couldn't stop myself.


It gets so tiresome continually reading comments about how it's either too hard, too unrealistic, or too rare of an occurance to need to shoot a pistol beyond X distance that it's not worth practicing for. This thought amazes me. It also amazes me that many will monday morning quarterback about it and still feel it's too hard, too unrealistic, and too rare to need to practice for.


When you practice the harder stuff, the easy stuff gets much easier. Maybe I was just raised wrong. I was taught to aspire to try hard and see what I could do, not wring my hands and say it can't be done because I couldn't do it. Seems that if some can do it, then I'm I should be able to do it, and am going to practice and see if I can do it.

It really is about mind set. I think many WILL fail, because they THINK they will fail.

I'm glad Butch OHare didn't feel that it was too hard, or, or, heaven forbid, that he was "outgunned" when alone, he shot down all those Japanese Betty fighter bombers that had SO many more, and bigger guns than he did. Maybe he was raised wrong too.



Maybe I'm getting too old. I just don't understand so much about how people think any more.

[Bailey Boat]

I have to ask myself a couple of questions here......

1. Why do I carry a concealed handgun??????
2. Am I willing to put my life on the line when I'm not being threatened??

Answer 1. I carry a concealed handgun to protect ME and my family. I can't save the world, can't save you, your neighbor or anyone else. If the threat is directly on ME, I'll react accordingly.

Answer 2. No, I'm not.... As was stated, the "shooter" was over 50 yards away and hasn't even acknowledged that he knows I'm anywhere around. Could I make a killing shot at that distance??? I've shot at that range before and have excellent hit percentages, under controlled circumstances, The mall setting was a far cry from that. So I hit him and he then turns on me, now I'm in a worse position than before. I will not put my life on the line unnecessarily.

I feel that NWJT took the correct action, retreat....... He obviously has lived to tell his tale. "A good run is better than a bad stand"...........

[fearless leader]

Quote: The dead and injured at the Omaha Mall Will have a very tough time suing the mall in this shooting.They can and will say "It's not our fault sue the shooter" And he's dead and no deep pockets.

LaVere, a strong argument could be made that since the mall took it upon themselves and conciously made a desicion not to allow you to provide for your own defense, the can be financially liable for your injuries.

If a man slips on a bananna peel in the mall, where the general public is invited to come, do they say, find the guy that dropped it and sue him?

No, I have known that sooner or later, some antigunner would trip over his proverbial gun-grabbing mitts and someone would get hurt as a result of not being able to defend themselves.

I hope that everyone harmed by this collects from Simon Properties big time.

[fearless leader]

Quote: If you can't hit a cantelope from 50 yards, you need to practice more.

Can you hit a moving cantelope from 55 yards that is shooting at you, while under stress?

[canopy2k]

It’s better to try and fail than to have never tried at all.

If I was in that mall alone, without my family, I believe I would have done everything possible to stop the shooter. Even if I was unarmed, I'm sure I could have found something to throw at him. Would my family miss me if I lost? Sure they would. But they would be taken care of, both by insurance and other family.

I've thought long and hard about this type of situation and have come to one conclusion. I am a sheepdog. My life is lived to protect others, regardless if they are related to me or not. I set the example for my son. And, IMO, dying in the effort to protect others is a much better example to him than coming home and telling him how I tucked tail and ran while others were gunned down in front of me.

Now, were my family with me, I would first and foremost ensure their safety. After they were secure, and the shooter was still active, there is a strong possibility that I would return to the fight.

How would you feel if your mother, your wife, your daughter, was gunned down by vermin like this a-hole; knowing that I watched it happen because I was too afraid to take a shot because I might miss?

c2k

[punchdrunk]

thanks for the post. Good read.

[Aguila Blanca]

Leaves me thinking it's time to retire my 3" 1911 in favor of a Commander. Maybe I can find an ankle holster and carry the shortie as a bug.

[Slugless]

This guy would have tried to take a head shot at 55 yards with a sidearm? Sounds like a good way to get yourself killed

I took this statement to mean shoot for torso shots, not head shots. Hitting a moving cantaloupe at 55 yds is a lot harder than shooting a moving beer keg at 55 yards.

[Superlite27]

Everyone always thinks to themselves "If only I was there with my gun, I could have shot him!", yet they weren't the one who was there. It all sounds so cut and dried. "Hey, there's a guy shooting! I'll stop him!".

The author acted correctly.

CCW holders are NOT trained professionals. I don't care if they won the IPSA World Shoot five years running. IT IS THE POLICE WHO ARE QUALIFIED. Oh, sure, the private citizen is probably way more available, and most are probably a better shot.

A CCW is for SELF defense. It is to be used when a person has no other choice. Sure, Castle Doctrine has allowed a person to stand their ground, but basicly, a common citizen isn't qualified to go on the offensive. (I didn't say allowed, I said qualified.)

We all know the police have no duty to protect individuals. However, when it comes to the general public, it is definately their job. Imagine walking into a gas station and noticing a man with a gun drawn. If your first instinct was "shoot him", you'd probably do so.

How do you know this man isn't an undercover police officer?

No. The reaction to get away is the correct one. A firearm should be used be civilians as it was designed.....for SELF defense. In this case, if the author was armed, and he could obviously see that the gunman was a confirmed bad guy, his decision to intervene with deadly force could have saved many lives. By doing so, he would have agreed, as a good samaritan, to accept the possible consequences.......death.
Therefore, if you are a person who values their life, for your children, or family and friends, taking the shot wouldn't be prudent. However, if you place sacrifice above all, and wouldn't mind losing your life so that others might possibly live, then by all means, TAKE THE SHOT!
I have never been in a shootout, and would like to avoid any that may happen. I would like to think I have the courage to ignore the consequences, and end the threat. However, unless I am actually involved in one, I'm going to avoid writing anything in stone such as, "Yup. If I was there, I would have stopped him."

[hunttheevil]

The individual actually stated in the beginning of the article an estimated distance of 30 yards, which after reflecting upon, he felt was maybe 50 yards. This goes to show how things change under stress. The point of his recap was not the distance to the shooter, but his rights were tread upon. He wasn't allowed to carry on posted property. he was in a stressful situation looking for a way out. He would have been ready to defend himself if allowed to because he was backed into a corner before he saw the exit.
I would rather discharge all 14 rounds in my weapon to slide lock in attempt to wound or incapicate this individual, than stand there with a target hung around my neck. Then reload.

[cambeul41]

The dead and injured at the Omaha Mall Will have a very tough time suing the mall in this shooting.They can and will say "It's not our fault sue the shooter" And he's dead and no deep pockets.

Now imagine if they say yes you CAN carry. Their liability go off the charts. They would never win in a law suit. They could not get insurance or the cost would be astronomically high the mall could not afford it and have to close.

Say what?

IANAL in real life or on TV, are you?

I can, however, easily imagine a victim or the family of one finding a lawyer who would help sue the mall for big bucks on the basis that they enabled the deaths and injuries by creating a disarmed victim / criminal empowerment zone.

If even one of the victims happens to have been a CCW holder, disarmed to conform to the malls rules, I would love to see a law suit filed.

[The Canuck]

Another issue with engaging the BG is that even if you hit him, he *may* be wearing some form of body armor. And then if he turns around...

you shoot him again.

[iiibdsiil]

My concern with taking a shot at the shooter is what are the other people going to think when they hear gun shots and then see me with a gun? What about another CCW holder? The police that just raided the place?

I know you can't worry about everything, but it's something to think about.

[CombatArmsUSAF]

You guys sound alot like the Antis when they say:

"Aren't you afraid that the BG is gonna take your gun and use against you?"

"We don't need a bunch of untrained civilians carrying weapons around. it will only cause more people to get killed."
--I'd also bet that you'd be hard pressed to find statistics saying that a shooting involving a CCW holder shot 7 75 rounds and only hit the BG 7 times.

Even if you were 50 yds away, a shot in the BGs direction is going to make him go for cover at a minimum. This would possibly give you the time to get into position to tap the guy in the forehead with a bullet.

Body armor does not make someone impervious to gunfire. The only thing that it MAY stop, and I use that term lightly, is the actual penetration of the projectile. There is still all of the kinetic energy the bullet carries, that has to be absorbed by something. Mostly the BG's body. It's not the bullet that creates the traumatic wound, it's the kinetic energy and the "shock wave" that it carries. All you have to do is look at ballistic gelatin that's been shot to see that.

My point is:

Even if the BG was wearing body armor, getting shot in the chest will most likely be enough to knock him down, at the very least.

[Charles Foxtrot]

.
I've had a gun in my gut during a robbery - that's the extent of my knowledge.


But, since I know absolutely nothing, here are my thoughts:

1. The safety of your charges is paramount. You protect, then get them to a safe place.

2. You have a responsibility to your loved ones to stay above dirt. Retreating safely is definitely the better part of valor.

3. However, if you have clear shot, solid cover, and a good retreat path, you might think about doing your fellow man some good.

The Military talks a lot about disconcerting the enemy by getting inside his OODA Loop (Observe-Orient-Decide-Act), i.e.: taking the initiative. Dumping half your available ammo at the nutjob's head will likely drop him out of his careful rehearsed fantasy. He's now got to evaluate, think, and decide; something he's obviously not very good at. You might buy your fellows several precious seconds, and who knows, maybe hit the 10 ring. After your volley, you're doing the bug-out-boogie. You don't want to be bringing a handgun to a rifle fight.

Anyway, that's what the voices in my head are saying. YMMV.

As a **********n, a CCW is a practical impossibility. So, I'm going to be going elsewhere - rapidly - if I'm ever caught in that situation.

[Flyboy]

This may belong more in S&T than General, but it's been tugging at the back of my brain for a while now. Everybody has been saying that at 50 yards, the rifle has a huge advantage over the pistol, and this is certainly true. If you've made the decision to engage, then, why not minimize the advantage?

I took some training from Tom Givens (http://www.rangemaster.com/), and one of the videos he showed was a police officer being shot following a vehicle stop. The shooter used a .30 Carbine. After the video, we discussed the incident with an eye toward how the officer could have won the encounter (survived).

At the top of the list, of course, was "get the hell out of Dodge." He also could have escalated with force more quickly, to keep the advantage on the perp (he was still shouting commands when the bad guy got out of his truck, grabbed a rifle, and started shooting).

Once he was committed to the gunfight, though, we discussed how he could have handled the shooting portion better. One of the things we came up with was charging the shooter. If the range is very close, a handgun is nearly equivalent to a long gun (or even better, if at halitosis range, due to the unwieldy nature of longarms). At long ranges, the shoulder arm is the clear winner. If, however, the pistol is close enough to the longarm--and I'm not going to lay down a number, as I think that's a good point for debate--to be able to close the distance, wouldn't that be something that might be a worthwhile option?

I'm not suggesting running a hundred yards. Fifty may be stretching it, at least without some sort of cover. But, say, thirty yards? A guy in decent shape might be able to close enough of the gap to negate a lot of the longarm's advantage, if he has committed to the fight already. I'm not arguing "rush the guy" in favor of "rush out the door," but if you've already made the decision to engage, do you think it would be worthwhile?

Just something I've been mulling over since reading this thread. As long as we have the ability to learn from this--especially with someone who is familiar with firearms so intimately involved--it seemed like something worth discussing.

[Dave Workman]

This guy would have tried to take a head shot at 55 yards with a sidearm? Sounds like a good way to get yourself killed.

LOL. Fifty yards is not that far, and if this guy was standing relatively still, long enough (say 3-7 seconds) to get a good sight picture, there s no reason to suggest that a good shot can't be made. The head is a rather large target at 50 yards. If you can hit a gallon milk jug at 50 yards, you can hit a human head.
So, save those plastic milk jugs, fill them with water, and practice, practice, practice

[siglite]

CCW holders are NOT trained professionals. I don't care if they won the IPSA World Shoot five years running. IT IS THE POLICE WHO ARE QUALIFIED. Oh, sure, the private citizen is probably way more available, and most are probably a better shot.

Ok. I'll take the troll bait. I find this blanket statement patently ridiculous. I've yet to meet a police officer on the range that I can't outshoot in CQB drills, shoot while moving drills, or longer range precision style shooting. I've yet to meet one on the range that I can't get quicker, more accurate shots @21 feet. I know they're out there. Reportedly, one lives in my neighborhood, but I haven't had the pleasure of shooting with him yet.

Among the group of folks I typically shoot with, my skill levels are pretty much the lowest. They'll pat me on the head and tell me how nicely I'm progressing. But they all outshoot me. My wife outshoots me with hand guns. My buddys gf's time from holster to on-target is a third faster than mine. Her times for emergency reloads are fully half mine. And trust me. I'm the slow, inaccurate shooter among the group of folks I shoot with.

And I'm better than most of the cops I've met.

The average officer here fires his weapon once a year for qualification. Some of them even go out and shoot a box of shells the week before quals. I've seen their qual requirements. I could qualify on that test looped on quaaludes.

Please understand, I'm not bragging. I'm *not that good*. I mean it. Every time I'm at a competition, or around my instructors, or around Real Shooters<tm> I'm reminded of just how good I'm not.

I'm not cop bashing either. I fully understand that much like us, an LEO's job is NOT to shoot people. Much like us, it has to be a last resort. Most agencies just don't provide that much firearms training, because the actual use of their firearms is so statistically rare. It makes sense to me.

But the above claim, that only LEOs can stop a rampaging shooter, and the implication that only LEOs could or shoot stop a rampaging shooter is false, and in my opinion dangerous.

</troll_feeding>

[sinistr]

take the 50+ yard shot,no.take the 4 +/- extra seconds it takes to cut down that distance and end the problem.he is shooting a rifle,do you really want to exchange shots with high capacity long gun?take the few extra seconds and close the distance on his blind spot.i doubt shooting that guy in the back would land someone any legal problems.

[LanEvo`]

LOL. Fifty yards is not that far, and if this guy was standing relatively still, long enough (say 3-7 seconds) to get a good sight picture, there s no reason to suggest that a good shot can't be made.My thoughts exactly. Me and all of the "old timers" at my gun club have been shooting NRA Bullseye (.45 ACP at 50 yards with a one-handed hold) for years. Similarly, any handgun hunter could make such a shot, even with the excitement of a hunt. No reason to think shooting a handgun at a static target 50 yards away with great precision is unrealistic.

After all, NWJT had the jump on the shooter and a few seconds to catch his breath and calm himself. He says he had a clear, unobstructed broad-side shot. And, unlike an NRA Bullseye match, there's no reason not to use a two-handed hold and find something to brace yourself against. Obviously adrenaline is pumping, you're freaking out, etc. But I'd be willing to bet that any NRA Bullseye shooter or handgun hunter could have placed, say, 50% of his shots in a man-sized target under those circumstances.

This is one of those cases where carrying a gun with "adequate combat accuracy" (i.e., 5" groups at 5 yards :rolleyes:) and never practicing beyond "realistic combat scenarios" (i.e., spray and pray at 7 yards) falls apart. Accuracy does matter. The ability to shoot well at longer distances does matter.

[bogie]

CCW holders are NOT trained professionals. I don't care if they won the IPSA World Shoot five years running. IT IS THE POLICE WHO ARE QUALIFIED. Oh, sure, the private citizen is probably way more available, and most are probably a better shot.

I'll also take a shot at the troll bait...

If I understand this correctly, you're saying that waiting six minutes for a guy who probably spends more effort on improving his report writing skills than on his shooting skills is preferable to engaging a shooter who is obviously up to no good? I don't know what video game you live in, but if I see some guy with an AK or SKS shooting at obviously unarmed civilians, I'm gonna do my damnedest to drop him.

If, by "qualified' you mean "authorized," that's another can of worms. More than likely these "qualified" and "authorized" folks will set up a perimeter, and then demand that everyone who is still alive after the shooter runs out of ammo walk out with their hands up. So that they can then write reports.

I may not be a "professional," but I probably fired more rounds before I was twelve years old than most of the "professionals" have in their entire careers. This may also come as a shock to some folks from the utopian side, but I'm also college educated, and relatively intelligent. I'm more than capable of making decisions rapidly and correctly, without benefit of stuff like binary choice zero tolerance policies.

[LanEvo`]

You know, I would LOVE to see NWJT sue the mall for their no-guns policy which prevented him from exercising his 2A rights and not respecting his CCW permit. Maybe get the families of the victims involved in some sort of class action. I'm sure they could find some savvy law firm to take up the case.

Money talks. Maybe a high profile civil suit like this might help raise awareness of RKTBA issues.

[bogie]

If in fact he was there (Hey, I've lived in Missouri a long time...), he doubtless will be dealing with PTSD. He needs to seek recompense for his suffering.

[gunsmith]

We can get this story out if we all cut and paste and send it to blogs and other new media sources.
We don't have to wait for foul news or commie news network to cover it anymore!

[LanEvo`]

If in fact he was there (Hey, I've lived in Missouri a long time...), he doubtless will be dealing with PTSD. He needs to seek recompense for his suffering.Exactly. A violent criminal gets shot dead by a law-abiding citizen in a botched robbery or home invasion. Does anybody bat an eye when the law-abiding citizen gets dragged through the court system for daring to exercise their fundamental civil liberties? Well, the argument goes, the family has the right to seek some compensation for losing their loved one...even if it was his own damned fault.

So why shouldn't a law-abiding citizen who was put in a horrible situation because he wasn't allowed to exercise his Constitutionally protected rights do the same? He's got to live with this for the rest of his life. The feeling of powerlessness/helplessness in the face of a life-threatening situation. The knowledge that he could easily have saved so many lives if he had only ignored a completely illogical and arbitrary rule. He has been punished for respecting the law.

[OpFlash]

No way I'd go up against someone with a semi auto rifle at 50yrds with a typical service handgun, its suicide unless you're lucky. Now if I thought I could maneuver to within 20yds undetected, thats another story.

[XD-40 Shooter]

The only way I would even consider engaging this lunatic, was If I had a hi-cap semi-auto 12+ rounds capacity, with a spare magazine ready. If I were only armed with a snubby revolver, forget about it! I would only try to protect myself and family and try to find a way out. I still believe its a huge risk engaging a lunatic with an AK-47, with a handgun. The question is, are you willing to take it? One torso hit with a 7.62x39, and you're done! You would have to empty the magazine in his direction, and pray you got at least a 50% hit rate, with at least one lethal round. That's a big gamble. I'm not sure I would even take those odds.

By the way, I also practice every weekend, I shoot on the order of 3000 rounds/year. If I were going to take a shot at this idiot, I'd prefer to close the distance to under 25 yards, much more probability of a hit. Even better, sneak up behind him and shoot him in the back.:D

[yenchisks]

so half of ya think you can make a 50 yard head shot,have any of you saw 44minutes ,its not the same when your getting shot back at.Best bet is to give up and walk preferrably behind him 6 to 10 feet. the meaning of(best to give up) your life for others

[Wes Janson]

Everyone keeps focusing on headshots and forgetting that shooting COM is still the best strategy. If he's wearing a vest you're probably screwed regardless, and were from the moment you got into the fight. With that said, it makes the most sense to aim for the torso, dump the mag, and then vacate the vicinity. Even a "5 inch at 5 yard" pistol might be worthwhile if you extrapolate that to a 50 inch group at 50 yards-even a snubbie .38 means you've got 5 chances to hit a 70 inch by 10 inch target. Even a superficial wound to an extremity is preferably to letting him rampage unopposed. Anything at all to change the dynamics of the situation, give people time to evacuate, buy time for the officers, and distract the shooter, is worthwhile.
CCW holders are NOT trained professionals. I don't care if they won the IPSA World Shoot five years running. IT IS THE POLICE WHO ARE QUALIFIED. Oh, sure, the private citizen is probably way more available, and most are probably a better shot.

A CCW is for SELF defense. It is to be used when a person has no other choice. Sure, Castle Doctrine has allowed a person to stand their ground, but basicly, a common citizen isn't qualified to go on the offensive. (I didn't say allowed, I said qualified.)


You are a borderline troll, and do not deserve to be fed.
I'm not suggesting running a hundred yards. Fifty may be stretching it, at least without some sort of cover. But, say, thirty yards? A guy in decent shape might be able to close enough of the gap to negate a lot of the longarm's advantage, if he has committed to the fight already. I'm not arguing "rush the guy" in favor of "rush out the door," but if you've already made the decision to engage, do you think it would be worthwhile?


Except that running towards someone who is firing at you is an extremely quick way to die. Sorry, but I can't possibly see that working. If he's not aware of your presence, running might get you close enough to make a more effective shot, BUT if he turns and spots you, you're screwed. In the time it would take to slow down, aim, and fire you'd be very dead. It might be different if you don't have a clear shot at all, but trying to close the gap just to maximize accuracy seems like a dangerous gamble. Better to take the time and try to steady up for a shot if at all possible.

[repo]

This witness account (if it's true) sounds vaguely familiar to reports of the port arthur massacre. Short haircut, vest, AR15, no talking, "professional" mannerism, possibly more than one shooter, "militaristic" over tones? I don't want to sound like a nut but there's some theories that the port arthur shooting was not actually done by the retarded man they have locked up. That kid in Omaha certainly didn't look "professional" and from what I understand he stole the gun from his dad so how much practice could he have had?

[UnknownSailor]

Here's they way I see it:
Picture your average big box department store. Clothing racks galore with aisles. The shooter was probably seen over the top of clothing racks or the like, and was likely only visable from maybe the elbow or mid upper arm up.

A clothing rack would make a great improvised rest. They would also provide concealment if one decided to approach the active shooter, depending on layout and circumstances.

Now I'm not exactly a one hole shooter with a pistol, but I do OK. And even I could make a 50 yard shot from a supported rest.

[Eagle103]

Hopefully we can get some 3rd party verification of this guys story. I'm not saying I don't believe it but this is the internet.
If it's true this guy sounds like another Suzanna Gratia-Hupp (of the Luby's shooting infamy) whose story should be told wherever possible to make sure this cowardly massacre gets the debate focused on liberalizing gun rights instead of further neutering them.

[FieroCDSP]

I'll weigh in.
Look at your average retail establishment or department store. Concealment is aplenty. Clothing racks, counters... Placed no less than 36" apart per ADA requirements. You can remain concealed for a short time, given a lot of luck.
Cover, however, does not exist. Not in the least. I've shot through 8" tree trunks with an SKS. No glass, wood, or aluminum in a store is cover.

If unarmed, as in the story, bug-out is the best option. As for me, if armed, and knowing the shooter is taking out innocents, I'd probably have to open up. I don't think I could look myself in the mirror if I had some chance, even small, to stop a guy like that and didn't take it.
As for the range...I can hit 50ft reasonably well. Maybe not a ragged COM hole, but I can place holes into a silhouette target at that range. NOt necesarily lethal hits, but a hole is a hole. To a gunman that isn't expecting resistance, the sudden mental and physical shock of a bullet hole could stop or slow him down, or turn him from innocents at least.

I'm young and don't have a family of my own to protect. Maybe I'm wrong in thinking that the saving of a person I don't know would be worth the risk of my own. Regardless, that's who I am, I think.

In a sick game where a life can be extinguished in the blink of an eye, six minutes is an eternity that can be used to do something to save it.

The people in that mall were stripped of their right to protect themselves, under the guise of "protection". It's got to stop somehow.
I stated somewhere that as much as the antis use these murders to try to further gun-control, more and more people are asking themselves what protections those signs really give. When they get the true answer, they understand what we're fighting for. Handgun sales and Permit requests are up everywhere we have Shall-Issue. People are coming around. Each "Incident" only serves to spotlight the failings of thinking the government is supposed to protect us. The strong decide to take action, the weak shrink from it.
Just my thoughts....

[chute2thrill]

i live in omaha, ne. i have been to the von maur so i obviously know the environment... if someone had been carrying and decided to act against the assailant.. he/she would've, depending on their close quarter skills, been at the advantage... von maur is an extremely high class store and they have couches for people to lounge on everywhere. as well as many very thick high quality wooden tables... like i said, if someone had made the decision to approach the assailant. they would've had more than ample cover

[CleverNickname]

Even if the BG was wearing body armor, getting shot in the chest will most likely be enough to knock him down, at the very least.
These guys must be superhuman then, because they're not falling down. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aaS_2l8nGdg)

[Malamute]

"No way I'd go up against someone with a semi auto rifle at 50yrds with a typical service handgun,...."


That statement opens up several options.

Learn to shoot better.

Get a more accurate gun.

Don't do anything that may get you hurt.


Sorry for the digression. I's just hard to sit still when comments like this are made.


Many of the comments bring to mind Franklins oft quoted remark to the effect that "all that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing".

[canopy2k]

originally posted by FieroCDSP

As for me, if armed, and knowing the shooter is taking out innocents, I'd probably have to open up. I don't think I could look myself in the mirror if I had some chance, even small, to stop a guy like that and didn't take it.

+100

c2k

[bogie]

No way I'd go up against someone with a semi auto rifle at 50yrds with a typical service handgun, its suicide unless you're lucky. Now if I thought I could maneuver to within 20yds undetected, thats another story.

You need to practice more.

And life is not a video game or a movie.

I've out-shot, accuracy-wise, a scoped SKS at 75 yards. That was with a 6" Dan Wesson .357. Frankly, if you don't panic and freak out, distance shooting isn't really all that hard. It's just attention to detail as far as sight alignment, squeezing the trigger, all that stuff.

Okay - let's look at some external ballistics. Got a Hornady book right here.

Looking at a 1911, FMJ, moving at 850fps, with a 25 yard zero. It says I'll be 2.3" low at 50 yards. Darn. At 75 yards, I'm 8" down. Basically, aim at the base of the neck, and you've got a big impact area. So unless you _really_ screw up, you're not going to miss the fellow low. Even at 100 yards, you're only 17" down from your 25 yard point of aim. I can deal with that.

[CombatArmsUSAF]

Even if the BG was wearing body armor, getting shot in the chest will most likely be enough to knock him down, at the very least.

These guys must be superhuman then, because they're not falling down.

First off, I don't really get the feeling these guys are professional. These guys look like two rednecks playing around in their backyard.

I have seen first hand what a .30 caliber bullet will do someone wearing a Level 4 vest at 75 yards. This guy was only a matter of 5 feet away from the rifle. If you think that you can take a full power rifle round, let alone a .308, at that distance than you are seriously gullible. Also, keep in mind that the round could have been seriously underloaded.

Ask the cops and veterans with broken ribs and collapsed lungs if a vest stops the energy.

[Superlite27]

It's not the bullet that creates the traumatic wound, it's the kinetic energy and the "shock wave" that it carries. All you have to do is look at ballistic gelatin that's been shot to see that.

Wrong.

"Kinetic energy does not wound. Temporary cavity does not wound. The much discussed "shock" of bullet impact is a fable and "knock down power" is a myth." -Agent Urey W. Patrick in Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectiveness (http://www.firearmstactical.com/pdf/fbi-hwfe.pdf)

[bogie]

A lot depends on mindset. If you _know_ that getting shot center mass is going to kill you, odds are you get real shocky real fast. However, more than a few folks _have_ been hit that way, and either lived long enough to kill someone else, or they've even recovered fully - It's possible for the vitals to be missed, you know...

[meef]

Poster #1:Even if the BG was wearing body armor, getting shot in the chest will most likely be enough to knock him down, at the very least.

Poster #2:These guys must be superhuman then, because they're not falling down.

Poster #3:First off, I don't really get the feeling these guys are professional. These guys look like two rednecks playing around in their backyard.

I have seen first hand what a .30 caliber bullet will do someone wearing a Level 4 vest at 75 yards. This guy was only a matter of 5 feet away from the rifle. If you think that you can take a full power rifle round, let alone a .308, at that distance than you are seriously gullible. Also, keep in mind that the round could have been seriously underloaded.

Ask the cops and veterans with broken ribs and collapsed lungs if a vest stops the energy.Guess again.

That video features Richard Davis of Second Chance Body Armor. You may or may not have heard of him. Hardly a redneck playing around in his backyard.

That was also not the level of body armor you're going to see a cop wearing on the street that was being demonstrated with the .308.

The first two quotes above refer to the fact that one person says that getting shot on the chest while wearing body armor will still likely result in the person being shot get knocked down. The other person attempts to correct this common misconception by providing a link with a video illustration.

Here's a little more of the same. Shorter than the first one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5y44CdrBsfs&feature=related

[bogie]

The reason Rich stuffed the material under his vest is that this sorta thing HURTS. The vest is not a perfectly rigid material - it will bulge inward. Bruising, broken ribs, etc... Better than getting shot with a .44 magnum (which is what he typically shot himself with), but it'll still ruin your whole day. Vests are typically tested by being placed over modeling clay, and then the deformation of the clay is measured.

But this is all in the realm of "what if" - What if someone had engaged the shooter? What if they were successful? Or even unsuccessful? Would a life have been saved? Probably.

[Aguila Blanca]

Many of the comments bring to mind Franklins oft quoted remark to the effect that "all that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing".
Franklin's?

[Malamute]

Oops, did I mis-credit the source?


May have mixed that up with the freedom/security quote he is credited with.


Who DID say that about evil and good men doing nothing?

[HuntAndFish]

You know, I would LOVE to see NWJT sue the mall for their no-guns policy which prevented him from exercising his 2A rights and not respecting his CCW permit.

I would like to see a lawsuit like this work as well. However, a judge would probably throw out a lawsuit from this particular guy because as he says, he didn't follow through on getting his CCW permit (for what reason doesn't matter). So even if allowed to by the Mall authorities, this particular guy couldn't have been legally carrying.

[bsf]

You know, I would LOVE to see NWJT sue the mall for their no-guns policy which prevented him from exercising his 2A rights and not respecting his CCW permit.

I would like to see a lawsuit like this work as well. However, a judge would probably throw out a lawsuit from this particular guy because as he says, he didn't follow through on getting his CCW permit (for what reason doesn't matter). So even if allowed to by the Mall authorities, this particular guy couldn't have been legally carrying.

I think these lawsuit suggestions are bull. The mall did not kill those who died, and was no more responsible for the risk to survivors than the survivors themselves. This is still a somewhat free society with something resembling a capitalist economy. People were free to shop elsewhere. If a business establishment sets some ridiculous policy that prohibits the wearing of any footwear but sandals made from the hides of albino wildebeest, I think I would not shop there. AFAIK, there was only one nut-job killing people in that store. We are far too a litigious society.

[bogie]

Nope. If the mall insists that you are defenseless, then they should then assume a responsibility for your safety.

[LanEvo`]

I would like to see a lawsuit like this work as well. However, a judge would probably throw out a lawsuit from this particular guy because as he says, he didn't follow through on getting his CCW permit (for what reason doesn't matter). So even if allowed to by the Mall authorities, this particular guy couldn't have been legally carrying.I must have missed that. I thought that he had a CCW but didn't carry in the mall that day.

[Lew]

Malamute:

I believe that was Edmund Burke.

[gunsmith]

The knowledge that he could easily have saved so many lives if he had only ignored a completely illogical and arbitrary rule. He has been punished for respecting the law.

We have got to get the message out that these gun free zones are killing people, if not the njwt guy then someone could have gotten close to the creep.
We are not talking about some highly trained Marine Sniper here.
The shooter was a pathetic loser without a lick of common sense or decency, a fool and a moron.
I am willing to bet some of the witnesses were in striking distance, but fear kept them from tackling during reload.

This thread is not about whether we are good enough to engage a target that is highly motivated and trained, it is about gun free zones making it impossible to engage a disgustingly vile idiotic creep.

[OpFlash]

Now I'm not exactly a one hole shooter with a pistol, but I do OK. And even I could make a 50 yard shot from a supported rest.

So could I... with a carbine. Maybe even with a 5" 1911, but I sure wouldn't bet my life on it. Most people CCW much less accurate weapons however. I carry a very lightweight 3" single stack 9mm, and 50 yds is out of the question. Many people carry 2" snubbies. In a store like that there is no cover against a rifle. You miss your first shot and you're dead. You DO have concealment however. A much better strategy IMHO would be to use that concealment to approach the shooter within 10-15yds undetected if possible, then pop up and empty your mag.

[feedthehogs]

If the mall insists that you are defenseless, then they should then assume a responsibility for your safety

The beauty of a free society is that we have the ability to go somewhere else.

We are not talking about some highly trained Marine Sniper here.
The shooter was a pathetic loser without a lick of common sense or decency, a fool and a moron.


And yet he managed to kill 8 people. Underestimating the ability of one's opponent will get you killed. Over estimating one's ability to shoot will do the same.

The fact of the matter is even if the mall was CCW compliant, less than1% of those who would have been carrying would have been able to take the shooter out.

The others who claim to be able are the ones who dream of the pilot passing out so they can land the plane safely and be a hero.

[wuchak]

I wanted to add a clarifying point in here since there seems to be common misconception running through this thread. I was not the mall's decision to restrict CCW. They are located in Omaha which has completely restricted it. Unfortunately the Nebraska CCW law did not have a state preemption clause. The mall couldn't have let people carry if they wanted to.

No CCW is all about Financial liability not your rights to Carry a Gun.
(period)
The dead and injured at the Omaha Mall Will have a very tough time suing the mall in this shooting.They can and will say "It's not our fault sue the shooter" And he's dead and no deep pockets.
Now imagine if they say yes you CAN carry. Their liability go off the charts. They would never win in a law suit. They could not get insurance or the cost would be astronomically high the mall could not afford it and have to close.
I know that that sucks but that is what is is. Until the liability and tort laws in each of our state change we will never have a welcome CCW carry in malls and other places......

Fortunately LaVere this is not true. The rest of the country is filled with malls and other stores where CCW is allowed, this mall had the bad luck to be located in Omaha.

[LaVere]

I wanted to add a clarifying point in here since there seems to be common misconception running through this thread. I was not the mall's decision to restrict CCW. They are located in Omaha which has completely restricted it. Unfortunately the Nebraska CCW law did not have a state preemption clause. The mall couldn't have let people carry if they wanted to.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LaVere
No CCW is all about Financial liability not your rights to Carry a Gun.
(period)
The dead and injured at the Omaha Mall Will have a very tough time suing the mall in this shooting.They can and will say "It's not our fault sue the shooter" And he's dead and no deep pockets.
Now imagine if they say yes you CAN carry. Their liability go off the charts. They would never win in a law suit. They could not get insurance or the cost would be astronomically high the mall could not afford it and have to close.
I know that that sucks but that is what is is. Until the liability and tort laws in each of our state change we will never have a welcome CCW carry in malls and other places......
Fortunately LaVere this is not true. The rest of the country is filled with malls and other stores where CCW is allowed, this mall had the bad luck to be located in Omaha.

I intent of my statement was if Malls or other open places have an open published policy that you have a right to carry and maybe please do.
Their chance of losing big law suits go out of site. It they have no policy they then have plausible deniably. Far better chance of winning.

[wuchak]

Agreed that if they have a posted policy that CCW is allowed they could open themselves up to liability. On the flip side if they are in an area where CCW would otherwise be allowed and they choose to post they should be liable for anyone who is injured where the injury could have been prevented if they had been allowed to carry. It would seem their safest bet is just to leave the question of CCW up to the legislature and not post their property either way.

[hardhit777]

If i had been in the same situation with my carry weapon ( A Russian Mak.) I would have drawn checked the shooters possition. if he was advancing on me i would throw a few shots at him to make him duck then get the heck out of there. If i had my new carry weapon a 92FS witha back up mag and i had desided to take the risk,i would have got as low to the ground as possible moved under consealment around behind him and engaged from behind. If a had to engage from the side i would drop down and shoot under the clothing racks for his legs/ pelvis. At least that way he wouldnt know where exactly you were shooting from. Atleast not untill after he goes down from multiple shots to the legs. Most people are not going to go as far as the Bank of America shooters did with body armor, If you can take away his mobility you can arleast limit the number of people that he can harm. At least this is how i think i would have handled the situation.

HH

[Werewolf]

Interesting thread. A topic well worth discussing...

Lots of good ideas, thoughts etc and somewhere between what the Rambo wannabees advocate and the, only the police are qualified to take action folks, lies a reasonable course of action for those with a CCW.

That said:That was a very good first hand account, good read.Yeah it was; if you believe it? Call me a cynic but it's way too convenient. I believed it right up to the point where he started talking CCW and what he might have done if he'd had one and was armed. Then all that stuff about CCW and telling the cops about it and them agreeing.

Sorry - I just don't buy it. That doesn't make the thread any less useful, I just don't believe this so called first hand account.

[jfh]

Please forward this to the appropriate policy-makers in your company.

The outcomes from the three shooting incidents this week--the one at your store in Omaha and the two in Colorado--are strikingly different.

At New Life Church, an armed security guard intervened, and ended a tragedy quickly. At your store, relying on a "no weapons" policy and unarmed guards, eight died before the perpetrator committed suicide.

Clearly, the conventional wisdom offered by your security policy makers is of no value for deterrence or for resolution: Criminals will not obey the law, much less signs, and your customers are further prevented effective self-defense by your no weapons policy.

You have some reflection to do about your store policies--and even more importantly, about the assumptions made about the need to prevent law-abiding citizens with a 'carry permit' from being armed on your premises.

jfh


FWIW, I just posted this same text over in "Activism." Feel free to use it as a guideline for any correspondence with them, or others, you may wish to have on this topic--but do not just COPY and PASTE it in, please.

jfh

[Elmer Fudd]

Good thing this lady didn't agonize over liability, bystanders, distances, etc.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/12/10/colorado.shootings/index.html

A Colorado Springs megachurch instituted security precautions after a shooting at a Denver area mission center earlier Sunday, saving "hundreds of lives" at the New Life Church, senior Pastor Brady Boyd said Monday.

A New Life parishioner acting as a security guard shot and killed a gunman who entered the church Sunday afternoon after he had gotten no more than 50 feet inside the building, Boyd said.

Two teens, identified by police as Rachel Works, 16, and Stephanie Works, 18, were killed in what Boyd called "a senseless, random attack."

Boyd said the teens were sisters and were shot in the parking lot along with David Works, 51, described by CNN affiliate KMGH as a relative of the teens. David Works is hospitalized in fair condition with two gunshot wounds, police said.

Boyd said the female security guard was a hero in preventing further bloodshed, rushing to confront the gunman just inside the church.

"She probably saved over a hundred lives," Boyd said of the guard, whom he said is not a law enforcement officer and used her personal weapon.

Boyd said the gunman, whom police have yet to identify, had no connection to the church.

"He simply showed up on our property yesterday with a gun, with the intention of hurting people, and he did," Boyd said.

The pastor also said New Life had taken extra precautions Sunday after hearing of the attack in Arvada, Colorado, early Sunday morning, in which a gunman killed two people after he was refused lodging at Youth With a Mission live-in Christian missionary center.

"Hundreds of lives were saved yesterday because of the plan that was put in place," said Boyd, who put the number of people on the church campus at the time as 7,000.

[BAT1]

Wow what an experience he'll never forget. I would love for him to testify to Congress or the Supreme court. I'm going to start practicing at 25 and beyond. Just a miss could of broke his trance.

[strat81]

Some of you guys are hysterical. I had no idea I was in such good company. So, let me get this straight, many of you claim you could've taken the Von Maur shooter out IF:
-You had a clear line of fire
-Sufficient ammunition
-A suitable weapon
-Time to aim (and adjust your POA for 50 yards)
-You were able to keep yourself from shaking like a leaf
-Find adequate cover and/or concealment

The shot NWJT could've made certainly wasn't impossible. But I'd put it at unlikely by the vast majority of shooters in less than perfect conditions.

[jfh]

I posted this info over in Activism as well, and Zundfolge reports it is a Mall ownership company policy, and not necessarily Von Maur's policy.

Based on his comment, I chased down that Mall company--Simon PLG.

Here (https://www.simon.com/about_simon/contact_spg/default.aspx) is a link to their e-mail for comments.

I sent a revised version of that e-mail to them--i.e., substituted "your mall" for "store", that kind of change. Feel free to use the text here (http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=3974411&postcount=1) for writing your own....

Jim H.

[bogie]

Guys, it really ain't that hard... Try it next time you go shooting. Takes a little concentration, and your bad habits will show up _real_ fast (and then you can eliminate them...), but 50 yard plus handgun shots are a reality. I know, following this, that I'm going to work more at longer distances (I used to, but then got into the close-up thing working on speed), and if I go to a high-profile area, it's going to be a .45 instead of the Kel-Tec...

re: sending notes: Like Jim said, DO NOT reuse other folks' text... Use it as a guideline, but be original. If it looks like they're getting mailbombed by a special interest group, they ignore it. Or lean the other way.

[meef]

There's been so much chest thumping going on here recently from those who could make the long shot under extreme duress, and would do this or do that to take out the bad guy that it boggles the mind.

It sounds like an infinity of monkeys on an infinity of bongo drums.

geez....

:cool:

[bogie]

Practice, practice, practice. Your life, and someone else's, may depend on it.

http://www.ihmsa.org/2007%20Rules%20Revised_files/2007%20Rules%20Revised.htm

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BTT/is_156_26/ai_82533192

And IPSC goes out to 45 metres...

http://www.bullseyepistol.com/comp.htm

[fireflyfather]

Can't read the whole thread, but want to make three quick points.

1. Lots of people talk about how chaotic the situation in the mall was, but nobody is commenting on how the author of the article (survivor) had a near perfect angle on the shooter, and could have fired from surprise. His first few rounds would not have had return fire, and there were no innocents in the line of fire, provided the backstop was decent.

2. Yes, his accuracy would be worse than the range, but if he can put 50% of rounds on target, then even an 80% accuraccy loss would still land one round out of a 10 round mag on target (and we are talking about head shots here folks...the dude could make 50% hits on a head at that range under controlled conditions. Even a 10% hit ratio would land a hit). Is that enough? Maybe, maybe not, but it's not the impossibility many are making it out to be.

3. Many people are suggesting that engaging the guy would draw fire. In this particular instance, the guy was already pretty screwed. There was a very good chance he would have taken fire anyway. He was already in the threat area. Also, the perp was firing a rifle in an enclosed space. He may not have even heard the pistol fire and located its source until a full mag was emptied in his direction. Hell, the survivor didn't accurately locate the first shots the rifleman fired. Why not empty a mag and displace? In this case, engaging the shooter would have been the right thing.

[canopy2k]

This thread is full of Kitty Genovese Syndrome.

c2k

[meef]

This thread is full of Kitty Genovese Syndrome.......:rolleyes:

Words.

[Kharn]

First post updated to reflect the mall removing the conduct code/no-ccw signs.

Kharn

[hecate]

They are located in Omaha which has completely restricted it.

Omaha passed an ordinance (over the mayor's veto) allowing concealed carry in accordance with state law. I know, I testified at the hearing:

http://www.municode.com/Resources/gateway.asp?pid=10945&sid=27

Search on Sec. 20-192. Carrying concealed weapon

One of the council members who sponsored it is a retired LEO whose life was saved on duty by an armed citizen.

[Phydeaux642]

If he could shoot those groups at 55yards at a range, he might as well reduce his hit percentage by at least half when in a high stress encounter... Then he is pitting a weapon that is not designed to accurately shoot at those distances against a weapon that makes a 55 yd. shot look like child's play. And once he does that, he becomes the target; with the deck stacked against him big time.

I was reading an article recently about the late Jim Cirillo and one of the stories in the article was concerning a shooting during an armed robbery where he ended up in a gunfight with three armed men. Two of the men were hiding behind a hostage. Mr. Cirillo said he was about 25 yards away and in just a matter of a few seconds he had killed one gunman and injured the other two. He also said that in the years to come that he could never duplicate the results of that shooting in a controlled situation. I guess sometimes you get into "the zone". I am not saying I could have hit the guy or that I would have tried. I hope I am never in the position to find out.

Ken is also a firearms instructor that teaches offensive tactics to LEOs, military, etc..., I would venture to believe that the great majority on this site train for defensive purposes.

Maybe that is worth rethinking.

CCW holders are NOT trained professionals. I don't care if they won the IPSA World Shoot five years running. IT IS THE POLICE WHO ARE QUALIFIED.

Oh, please.

_______________________

"Phydeaux, bad dog....no biscuit!"

[Rustynuts]

The more I think about the original NWJT account, I tend to think "pics or shens" to it. Seems too well thought out, bordering on prime Mall Ninja postings.

Some of the details just seem too contrived, like they're trying for a good read. Like the thing about still having the coat in hand after all the running to-fro, jumping over handrails, staring at the shooter for 5 seconds, perfect shot lineup at potentially unrealistic distances, etc.

A big UNCONFIRMED for this one for me (unless it has been, haven't read EVERY post!)

[JT1JTI]

An interesting thread. Some questions in my mind:

1) How do we know there weren't licensed CCW holders (or even off-duty LEOs) in the mall and carrying in contravention of the mall's stated policy? That is, people who were packing, but chose not to engage?

2) How do we know that even if the mall had no policy of against legal carry that the number of CCW holders present would have made a significant difference? Even if a representative number of CCW holders were in the mall, isn't it still a soft target from the perspective of someone ambushing innocents from an elevated position with a superior weapon? (I am mindful of the outcome in the Colorado church shooting, but I don't think the scenarios are 100% comparable.)

3) I've seen posts scoffing at the notion of paid and armed security for malls or other such targets. (e.g., "why would someone stick his neck out for $10 an hour??") Fair enough question, but then shouldn't we ask why we would expect unpaid CCW holders to do anymore?

For me, the takeaway from this shooting is to always know where the nearest working exits are and the safest way to get there. Yes, I would like to think I would engage the bad guy, but since I'm moving to California, I'm not sure bringing pepper spray to a gunfight is a realistic strategy.

[Avenger29]

3) I've seen posts scoffing at the notion of paid and armed security for malls or other such targets. (e.g., "why would someone stick his neck out for $10 an hour??") Fair enough question, but then shouldn't we ask why we would expect unpaid CCW holders to do anymore?

The thing about CCW is that the bad guys don't know you are carrying. An armed, uniformed security guard is a priority target. If I was robbing a store or killing a bunch of people, I'd shoot anybody that looked like they were wearing a uniform first.

but since I'm moving to California

Why are you moving TO CA?


The "Run away, run away- he has a gun, he's undefeatable!" and "Let the cops take care of it- they are the only ones qualified" arguments don't sit well with me.

I think a CCW'er with a decent weapon and the WILL TO USE IT could have significantly altered the outcome. Even if the odds were stacked against him. I wouldn't give it a second thought before deciding to engage. Better to die with a gun in your hand, trying to do your best than be shot in the back running away...

Yeah, malls, churches, etc- anywhere with a large number of people gathered (except maybe gunshows) is a "soft" target. But fighting back would still help, even if it only forces the shooter to keep his head down or focus his attention on those fighting back.

[Aguila Blanca]

What struck me about the "first hand" account is that his initial distance from the shooter seems to have been a bit, ah ... elastic. If I read the story right (and I haven't gone back to re-read it, I admit) I think he first mantioned 30 yards, and then later it had gone up to 40 or 50 meters.

Ya know, I occasionally get dragged into malls by my wife. 50 yards in a mall anchor store is a LOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG distance. I don't think there's an anchor store in any mall around here where you can see 50 yards, and probably not even 30 yards. Sure, the anchor stores are that big -- but they're full of "stuff" on display racks.

At any rate, I know I couldn't make a head shot at 50 yards and I carry a 1911. 25 yards I'd try for center-of-mass. 50 yards, I might take the shot but it would be a prayer shot.

[Caimlas]

Seems like a valid case for suing the mall, IMO - both the wrongful deaths and the emotional trauma this guy is likely to experience for quite a while, realizing that he could have done something if he hadn't been restrained - instead, he was forced to cower, run, and go against his instinct to stand and fight for his life. Furthermore, the lives of others - most of the others - could have (would have? most likely) been saved. That is a lot to live with.

Going up against a rifleman from a distance of 40 meters with a pistol is a situation where the odds are against you. Doing it without anything at all is suicidal. He'd been restricted by the law from doing anything but cower and run in fear: state-sponsored terrorism.


Then he is pitting a weapon that is not designed to accurately shoot at those distances against a weapon that makes a 55 yd. shot look like child's play. And once he does that, he becomes the target; with the deck stacked against him big time.

At least then he could say to himself - even if with his dying breaths - "my conscience is clear". I can not speak for this man, but this event would plague me until the day I die, had I been in his situation. Yes, I have a wife and family, and that would likely be on my mind. I think it is difficult to have a sense of civil duty and not care for the wellbeing of others at the same time. They're not mutually exclusive by any means, but for me, it holds true.

At the very least, a miss would've done at least one of several things: saved some others from becoming targets, allowing them to get away after realizing what was happening; killed the attacker; and/or allowed the attacker to get away.

(Don't forget: the police forces which have led, and do lead to oppressive uses of force were originally necessary because of a lack of armed and willing citizens to do what needs to be done to get the job done, despite personal interests in preservation.)

[HuntAndFish]

Wow. They took the "NO CCW" signs down? I didn't expect that. Good news if true though.

[xm15]

For all those that talk about the how hard it would be act effectively in a situation like this, and cry out that the best course of action would be to do nothing riskier than run away, I offer this.

"Far better is it to dare mighty things, to win glorius triumphs, even though checkered by failure... than to rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy nor suffer much, because they live in a gray twilight that knows not victory nor defeat." Theodore Roosevelt

[papajohn]

55 Yards with a handgun would get you killed? Really. I work armed, practice at all ranges, and regularly break 4" clay pigeons at 50 yards. I could have EASILY killed this moron, rifle or no. In fact, I'm betting that the second I popped a round at him, his rifle would have gone quiet even if I missed, because he'd be too busy cowering and covering, because he is a COWARD, like all these jerks are. 55 yards is NOT a long shot with a handgun, I'd wager I could hit you four out of six at 200 yards if you held still!

Papajohn

[Karma]

Rustynuts said:

The more I think about the original NWJT account, I tend to think "pics or shens" to it. Seems too well thought out, bordering on prime Mall Ninja postings.

Some of the details just seem too contrived, like they're trying for a good read. Like the thing about still having the coat in hand after all the running to-fro, jumping over handrails, staring at the shooter for 5 seconds, perfect shot lineup at potentially unrealistic distances, etc.

A big UNCONFIRMED for this one for me (unless it has been, haven't read EVERY post!)

"Pics or shens"? lol Had to look that one up, and I've been on the 'net for about 14 years.

But yeah, this immediately struck me as a sort of 'pious fraud' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pious_fraud). I'm not saying that it didn't happen, just that I'm a bit skeptical.

[XDKingslayer]

This guy would have tried to take a head shot at 55 yards with a sidearm? Sounds like a good way to get yourself killed.

The key thing to remember is that this is a guy thinking about arming himself for protection for the first time. He has no training, no guidance, no experience. He'll learn the proper thing to do just like all of us have.

There was a time early in our carrying "career" that we would have said the exact same thing.

[Eagle103]

I'm still waiting for verification of this guy's story.

[Henry Bowman]

Karn: Any indication on whether the sign removal reflect a positive change in the mall's policies -- or a negative one. That is, are they going to replace it with "NO GUNS" signs on all the doors and a "You will be removed and prosecuted" notice on the "rules" list?

[strat81]

Henry, the new signs (old signs?) are up.
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=325213

[coylh]

Well, the one time I tried it, I hit a paper plate at 100m with a CZ-75 on the first try, but I was perfectly calm, supported position, etc.

I wonder though, if you did take a shot at the guy, would he even hear it? Blasting away with no ear plugs(?) is going to dull his senses. If he did hear you take a shot at his noggin, would he then be able to locate you? I'm assuming you're only exposing your barrel and right eyebrow from the cover/concealment you're hiding behind.

[Black Adder LXX]

I'm betting that the second I popped a round at him, his rifle would have gone quiet even if I missed, because he'd be too busy cowering and covering, because he is a COWARD, like all these jerks are.

EXACTLY! Returning fire could have changed this situation drastically, even if he didn't score a hit...

BTW- That account was very sobering...

[MikeS63301]

You've got to remember in this situation... around here the malls have police and armed security guards. Sure the guy was firing on innocents, but you've GOT to think about how much of a problem you would create if you start firing on this guy. You risk 1) getting shot by the LEO on duty because he thinks you're the bad guy, 2) complicating the situation by giving the impression to the LEO's that there's more than one shooter, 3) getting shot by another CCW'er, 4) then there's where your lead is going if you miss or there's complete penetration. This is a mall, not a gun range. One on one is probably not the best way to handle this.

There's just so many variables in whether this guy should have taken a chance HAD he been armed. The sidearm he would have been carrying would be a big variable. You have to know what your weapon AND what yourself are capable of, not just react and take a pot shot because you think it's the right thing to do. At 50 yards, I'd have to think too long about whether I could make the hit. Some times the right thing to do is bug out fast as you can.

[Dr. Peter Venkman]

Once again it's threads like this one that truly show how castrated and full of the slave mentality the gun culture is. It should come as no surprise that the rest of society is permeated by the same phenomenon on an even larger basis.

[wjustinen]

I think it's realistic to assume that a person with a CCW engaging a rifle shooter at ranges past 15 yards is at a SEVERE disadvantage. The only two cases I'm aware of that put a civilian CCW against a rifle shooter ended with the CCW'er dead or seriously wounded and the rifle shooter still ambulatory.


"SEVERE disadvantage." Wow!!! But, I'll take that over UNARMED against a rifle shooter ANY OLD TIME.

By the way, the standard in these situations is a quick suicide when the shooter meets armed resistance. And it is about stopping the killing. That can only be done by someone on site. The cops rarely are.

[AK103K]

Once again it's threads like this one that truly show how castrated and full of the slave mentality the gun culture is.
Very well put. This also applies to the whole gun culture too, not just here. All the hand wringing over what to do about this and the whole scheme of things makes your point vividly. Anyway you look at it, stand around wringing your hands, and you'll die trying to make a decision, wont matter if its a crazed gunman or your government taking away your gun rights.

I find it interesting that there are some here who were diligent enough to apply for a carry permit and then carefully choose a proper firearm and the accouterments that go with it and proudly walk around wearing their gun, seem to have a problem with making what I see as a simple decision here, that being engage the shooter. Seems there might just be a little more to it than slipping that shooter on your belt, eh? You actually might be called on to use it.

Speaking of engaging, how many actually practice or have any experience "assaulting" someone? Do you stand at the range on a Sunday morning and calmly shoot tight little groups at 15, 25, 100 yards and proclaim yourself a marksman and competent to carry your "gun", or do you REALLY practice? Its very easy to shoot something that isnt shooting back, things tend to change dramatically when they do, and that works both ways. You stand a very good chance of prevailing, IF you are aggressive and determined, and even more so if you've done it before.

It seems to me, that many seem to think the "gun" is the power and will somehow make the bad man go away by their just having it in their hands. Some seem to think that even when you have it, you should run away. Unfortunately, you'd be running in the wrong direction. In that instance, and moment in time, YOU are probably the only solution to the problem.

I will tell you this, if I was there with my wife or kids, and they were killed or injured and you had the opportunity and means and didnt act, there would be one more victim of that tragedy, and they would have died from a beating.

[BrewCityProp]

I have a question. read several posts discussing a 50 yard shot under stress.

I don't know this store, BUT what dept. store at Christmas time has room for 50 yard clear line of sight (the author clearly describes clear line of sight)

Isn't it much more likely this distance is way off? I think you would have trouble finding anywhere in a packed store with 50 foot line of sight and I don't see how you get 50 yards.

Cheers

[MikeS63301]

BrewCity, you make a good point.

Look at the picture with circles of where the shooter and author were in relation to each other, then look at the cars on the parking lot. You can almost figure about how far they were in relation to the size of the cars. And I'm sure those aren't all big ol' '72 Cadillac Sedan Deville's either. I don't see how it's possible to be 50+ yards.

[JohnKSa]

"SEVERE disadvantage." Wow!!! But, I'll take that over UNARMED against a rifle shooter ANY OLD TIME.Why didn't you quote the rest of my post?I don't think that's sufficient rationale for saying that a person with a CCW should always turn and leave in a similar situation. Sometimes it's not just about the odds of surviving.The point of my post wasn't that a person shouldn't arm himself nor that he shouldn't respond, it was only to point out that his odds of survival are poor if he chooses to engage a rifle shooter with a typical CCW. I'm not sure why my rational assessment of the situation seems to offend you...By the way, the standard in these situations is a quick suicide when the shooter meets armed resistance.The two shootings I had in mind, the Arroyo/Wilson and the Maldonado/McKown encounters, the shooter did not commit suicide. Wilson was killed and McKown was paralyzed. Arroyo left the scene and was killed by police while Maldonado later surrendered.

I do agree that in most cases, the shooters seem pretty "ready" to end it all if things start to go against them, but it's not something that one can count on.

[Malamute]

"Once again it's threads like this one that truly show how castrated and full of the slave mentality the gun culture is."



Interesting observation. I agree.


The words that came to my mind were "whiney crybaby" mentality. I asked a mod about using the term and was told that as long as it wasn't directed at anyone in particular, it was fine by him. So, I won't direct it at anyone in particular. I'm just surprised to observe that the mentality so evident in this thread.

Really makes me wonder why some carry at all.

[Old Guy]

Starting where the witness was (position) and me the person looking at the almost back facing person, with the rifle firing.

I could have hit that person multiple times, I am a very good shot (shot the top center fire score in 80 years at my local gun club) carry the same Glock 19, that I shoot in IDPA matches. An old guy, not given to panicking.

Sixteen rounds of 127 ranger in pistol, one Glock 17 spare mag on off side. It is crazy to forbid guns in malls (Don't see, don't tell!) I would continue to fire till threat neutralized, holster, call 911. Be very careful only single shooter, till local Police arrive.

[Sam1911]

As others said before me, "Back to the crypt..."