American_Pit_Bull
Member
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.
First hand account of the Von Maur (Omaha, Nebraska) shooting
- Thread starter Kharn
- Start date
- Status
bogie
Member
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
Member in memoriam
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~!
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~!
Last edited:
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.
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
Ala Dan:
It wasnt me, just found it on the net.
Kharn
30 cal slob
Member
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.
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
member
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2002
- Messages
- 7,610
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 agree.
alucard0822
Member
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.
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.
"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.
"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
Member
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"...........
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
Member
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.
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
Member
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?
Can you hit a moving cantelope from 55 yards that is shooting at you, while under stress?
Last edited:
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
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
Member
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2007
- Messages
- 87
thanks for the post. Good read.
Aguila Blanca
Member
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
Member
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
Member
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2007
- Messages
- 712
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."
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
Member
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.
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
Member
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
Member
Oana said:
you shoot him again.
iiibdsiil
Member
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.
I know you can't worry about everything, but it's something to think about.
CombatArmsUSAF
Member
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.
"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.
Last edited:
Charles Foxtrot
Member
.
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 Kalifornian, a CCW is a practical impossibility. So, I'm going to be going elsewhere - rapidly - if I'm ever caught in that situation.
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 Kalifornian, a CCW is a practical impossibility. So, I'm going to be going elsewhere - rapidly - if I'm ever caught in that situation.
Last edited:
Flyboy
Member
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, 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.
I took some training from Tom Givens, 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.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
