First hand account of the Von Maur (Omaha, Nebraska) shooting

[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 ) 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]

Kharn, thank you very much

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.

 

[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.

 

[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]

Reply to CombatArmsUSAF

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

 

[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...