Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by gym, Jul 21, 2012.
Once again, we see that “gun free zones” are hunting preserves for psychopaths who prey on humans.
This person? Probably not. However, most people don't go to these lengths to plan an attack, and I'm honestly not sure what I would have been able to do with my compact .40 in that situation.
I have to disagree with that way of thinking. Don't be armed because you might shoot the wrong person just because they have a gun ? I don't think that the average citizen who has a permit to carry is likely to shoot another unless they are sure of what their faced with. I trust my fellow permit holders to not just shoot at anyone that holds a gun.
If you carry a gun and have not thought that aspect through, it is time you do.
1) poor visibility
2) mass panic in a crowd
3) an armored assailant
And in that case, hiding or retreating would be a better option.
Surely you didn't expect the media to report this correctly, did you?
Chad Weinman, CEO of TacticalGear.com of Chesterfield, Missouri, told CNN earlier that his company had a receipt matching Holmes' name and his Aurora address.
The receipt showed that Holmes bought an $106.99 Blackhawk urban assault vest...
At's a one more cheap ballistic (armored) vest!
Suddenly, it's looking like an armed citizen could have made more of a difference than the 'experts' think!?
One of the anti's arguments is just that - we can't be trusted to make good decisions in a crises situation. Only the police are trained to deal with these matters.
If you were there, perhaps that might have been the most reasonable thing to do - hide or retreat. However you may have also been able to clearly see what was transpiring and stop it before you or others got shot.
It's the choice that I don't want to automaticaly make for others by thinking it is too dangerous for citizens to be armed.
Some might see it as a recipe for disaster, but I see it as a chance for survival.
I didn't say you thought it dangerous to be armed. I said the other poster seemed to indicate that, and you replied
My point was that YES , I think he indicated that carry was a "formula for disaster" in this case - I was simply not in agreement with that.
Apparently, you share the "Dear Abby" viewpoint. "The criminal will be faster on the draw, a better shot and will take your gun and use it against you."
Freak random attacks by crazy people are always going to wreak havoc. They have the upper hand. We can only hope someone stops it before it gets really bad. We haven't seen the worst in this country yet.
And yes, the antis will always use these horrible incidents to push gun control. They could care less if gun control would have stopped it, which it would not have, they only want to use it as an excuse for more gun control.
When that nutjob shot Ms. Giffords and others, a person with a sidearm and CCW permit intervened. (As did a handful of presumably unarmed heroes.) In the interview I read, he stated that he refrained from shooting the apparent gunman because he was unsure of the circumstances. Instead, he joined in efforts to bodily restrain the person brandishing the gun. As far as I am concerned that is an A+ on both the Brains and the Balls portions of the “crazed shooter” exam.
Wow. That little interview dropped out of national media attention rather quickly, huh? Didn’t fit the agenda, I suppose. Darn these CCW gun nuts that just won’t shoot innocents to prove the meme.
Colorado is a carry permit state. They also have the usual thugs and lowlifes. Both go to movies. I would bet a paycheck that at least one person in that audience, perhaps two or three, had a handgun of some sort. If they never had the chance to shoot the bastard, they have absolutely no reason to stick around and talk about it afterwards. I, for one, am not going to walk up to a cop at a mass shooting and announce that I am armed. I think you can see why doing so might be unwise.
In Florida in the mid eighties, a carbine-armed shooter at a shopping center was himself attacked by a shopper with a .45. The hero was unable to get a hit, but at least he tried to stop the SOB. The cops, however, treated him as a second suspect, even long after it was clear he tried to stop the murderer. This is hardly a unique occurance on the part of police.
So you can see why some people might hesitate to intervene, even when they clearly are in a position to do so. Or even mention that they might have been able to do so.
If you can hit a teacup saucer at seven yards, or the black of the average bullseye target, you can make a head shot. If you can hit a pillow at seven yards, or the average target frame, you can make a body shot. If you drop to one knee, you can fire upwards at the shooter and put most of the potential bystanders out of the line of fire of that head or body shot. You will have to expose yourself to fire from the shooter. You may in fact hit one or more bystanders while engaging the shooter. But you _can_ stop the slaughter, even if only by diverting attention of the shooter from the victims to yourself. You may be shaking like a leaf, hyperventilating, and crapping your pants. So check that line of fire, take that half breath, and press smoothly.
Most folks I know personally who shoot pistols occasionally and have a CCW permit, could read the above paragraph and know how to handle a shooter in a crowd, _and do so_. Every second you distract the shooter, innocent people escape. Throwing a cup of popcorn would work to a degree. Putting a bullet in the SOBs brain works best. Your personal method is somewhere in that continuum. Yes, you can. Yes, _you_ can.
Some people, for any number of reasons, will decide not to intervene. All it takes, however, is a few who will. Do not become an ally and enabler of the mass shooter by advocating making his task less risky, either by restrictive legislation or by discouraging those who _will_ run to the gunfire.
Reason trumps evil. Don’t give me that crap that people cannot use reason in a crisis. And do not tell me that good people should do nothing, or should be prevented from doing something effective. For _that_ is the triumph of evil.
I gotta agree. Regardless of what one may think, the majority of CWC's are not trained for combat training. Also some folks in desperation would care less if they hurt someone else while saving their own azz. That's how folks get trampled when crowds panic. Could it have saved some if someone there had been carrying? Maybe, but it would not have saved them all. In a dark theater, filled with smoke, confusion and folks scrambling in all directions screaming and pointing, could some well meaning CWCer shot and injured an innocent person or persons by accident? IMHO, the probability is about the same in both scenarios. I don't think the priority here should be to armchair quarterback a horrific situation that is already over. The priority should be to make sure it doesn't happen again.
That said, I can see an after-the-smoke-clears scenario where every victim's newly aquired attorney sues the CHP holder for 'making things worse' and 'increasing the likelyhood of my client being injured' by engaging the bad guy.
Heck, the CHP holder probably has more potential money to go after than the derrainged bad guy.
I never understand why people choose to find reasons not to fight back against a mad man.
hso, thank you for coming to my defence while I was gone.
I never said CCW is useless. Merely making a point that in case of a well planned and executed attackit may not help much. And it can even hurt if you have someone with CCW loosing their nerve. In this particular attack, the best course of action would be to stay low and retreat.
Separate names with a comma.