Armed citizens could cause carnage during shooting sprees


SG171A

New member
From USA Today:

http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2007/...-citizens.html

Armed citizens could cause carnage during shooting sprees
James Greene - Ramlinsburg, Switzerland
I would like to respond to the letters published in USA TODAY about the recent shootings in Omaha and Colorado Springs. Several writers expressed the opinion that if bystanders had been armed, then they would be able to stop someone on a shooting spree. I am very doubtful of this (" 'Gun-free zones' make vulnerable people targets," Dec. 12; "Dose of reality, please," Dec. 10).

Even police officers and military personnel, who are constantly trained in the use of firearms, might not have drawn a weapon and returned fire in those situations. Their primary concern likely would have been to get themselves and their families to safety.

Attempting to return fire in a crowded shopping center would only create more panic and focus the shooter's attention on the person returning fire. This would further endanger anyone around the person trying to take down the shooter.

My comment: Why should a person from Switzerland have anything to say about my 2nd amendment right?
 

kwo51

New member
So just let him have his way untill ammo runs out. I think you would feel different if you were their.
 

Muzz

New member
Even police officers and military personnel, who are constantly trained in the use of firearms, might not have drawn a weapon and returned fire in those situations. Their primary concern likely would have been to get themselves and their families to safety.
If you can't get your family to safety, a firearm gives you a chance to create it where you're at.

Just more Euro-drivel...
 

sailor

New member
Carnage?

I always thought that carnage was what the perp. was accomplishing in a location where no one could oppose them. Fighting back is a bad idea - I read this a lot in comments to shooting spree articles. I guess some people think the Jews had it right in WWII - don't fight back, all "they" will do is kill you? I dispair of this kind of thinking, or lack thereof, when it comes to a life and death situation. And, I second the comment - the Swiss (or anyone else outside of the USA that is not a citizen) need not dictate what will or should be done within this country, but I guess his fuzzy "doubtful" & "might not" only rate as a low grade opinion. His thoughts on a police officer running to protect only his family represents a really low opinion of same. Reference the "Trolley Square Mall" shooting for how a real police officer, off duty yet, will respond to an emergency situation. That's my teeth gritting that you hear.:mad:
sailor
 
I love these hypothetical stories of tombstone shootouts when a crazed maniac comes into town. They always put great respect to the law enforcment, but not to average citizens. I've seen highly trained cops and cops that should not own a bb gun. I've seen highly trained citizens and not so highly trained citizens. Evidence shows times when the trained person won out in a gunfight and times when the old lady who has only shot once was able to defend herself. The truth of the matter is speculation means nothing. Instead lets look at cases where an armed citizen or cop has stopped a shooter or slowed him down. I think about whitmore in the tower who slowed down his fire when a bunch of citizens started shooting at the tower with their rifles. It bought the police time to get there and to organize. I think of the idiot, at trolley square, who took cover after the off duty officer started shooting back. I think of the man who was stopped by two people who grabbed rifles in their cars in virginia a few years ago. Most recently the ex-police officer who slowed the nut down at the church in CO. I cannot think of any case where "Hollywood" has kicked in with the slow motion and the barrage of gun fire knocking down people who just stand there. People start hiding when they realize whats going on. Its the few at the beginning that usually get it. Yes there are huge consequences with taking on a active shooter. Guaranteed none of us would shoot at the guy either unless we felt that we could safely and defense of life. I would guarantee that we would have the capability to protect family and the people hiding around us or at least buy everyone some time. I hate this tactic, but it is used a bunch. People like to project fear into readers based on their images of inreality and speculation. GRRR.
 

ecocks

New member
Typical uninformed

and also very typical European mentality on this subject. Things are changing over here VERY slowly. They had a school shooting a couple of months ago in Finland and England has had a couple every now and then as well. There was also the comment during the French riots that citizens with hunting rifles were engaging police units as well.

They practice so little (especially with handguns) that they find it difficult to understand the concept that you could be confident of hitting what you aim at. Notice they (anti's, not just Europeans) all want to play up the scenario of "would you trust a mere citizen to take a shot when your loved one is clutched tight against the criminal as a hostage?" They cannot conceive that you might have the tactical judgment of whether to take the shot or pass. I am assuming here but my gut feel is even their regular police (not any of their "Special" units) will be in spray and pray mode if shooting ever breaks out.

Even Switzerland, which boasts individually maintained militia weapons (assault rifles, SMG's, ammo and gear) in their homes has very strict regulations regarding keeping them locked in their containers and accounting for the ammunition issued to them. They are not just sitting propped in the corner of the closet with a couple of hand grenades and a half-dozen magazines lying on top. No one is taking their militia-issued FN (or whatever) out to bag a couple of deer (or civilians) on weekend shoots.

I think all of us are more than a little frustrated with the assumption of increased carnage when we keep pointing out that it simply provides an additional option for possible survival and ending the incident. The anti's never seem to want to discuss the incidents like Appalachian, Trolley Square or the school principal who fetched his gun from the car when the kid was shooting. One letter to the editor this last week regarding the Colorado Springs church shooting wanted to point out how "lucky" the church was that only one security guard returned fire, otherwise (their logic here) even more would have been killed due to all the flying bullets. Amazing. No concept of the guy having additional weapons and ammo or how that would have affected the casualty rate. No idea of how long it takes the police to arrive at a scene AFTER the violence has had 6 minutes, 10 minutes or more to happen.
 

HK4U

New member
Well I am glad we had this guy to inlighten us. Now that I understand, if I am ever in a situation where someone is shooting at me I will just stand there and let him kill me so as not to do any carnage.
 

ecocks

New member
Rofl

Yeah, I have that same general sinking feeling when I read some of the anti responses to the shootings in the last two weeks. There are obviously a vocal group of people who, somehow, STILL think the answer is to ban the guns. Let them kill more people (as you say) until they run out of ammo. Then shoot them in the leg (or other non-lethal spot, yeah I know, the femoral...but anti's are almost as ignorant of anatomy as they are of logic) with a disabling shot. Our policeman have been trained to do that haven't they (at least when they are not practicing their draw with loaded weapons at home)?
 
Last edited:

boris

New member
this person

has no clue. LEO's and milper may have had more / better training, but they do not go practice as often as we should or would like. those jobs incur more than weaponry. most LEO's only train enough to pass the qualification regs. same in military. everybody has to pass p.t.tests and weapons quals once a year. possible exceptions would be Infantry , SWAT, and specops. they would love to be able to have more time to train. who wouldn't?
 
Oh, Poo Poo On This Guy.

An armed citizen is more likely to STOP someone on a shooting spree than to make it worse - in fact, how could it be worse? If an armed citizen is shooting back, obviously the armed citizen is in just as much danger of being shot than anyone else in the area.

Is this guy from France instead of Switzerland? 'Course, those two countries border each other, don't they...

Woody

Those of us who are armed stand in the way of something terrible. I don't know what it is, but it is damned scared of us. Let's keep the fear in its heart, not ours. B.E. Wood
 

toreskha

Titles are un-American.
The opinion that an armed citizen could possibly make anything worse is highly uninformed and doesn't draw upon real-world shootings. Generally, people run away from a shooter, which often makes them one of the more isolated people in the area. People also tend to actively seek cover and hide themselves to avoid becoming targets. This tendency will tend to help armed citizens to not hit anyone - because there's no one to hit if everyone but the gunman is hiding!

Most shooters are usually pretty bad shots, and often aren't really focused on anything in particular. Even if the citizen is a terrible shot and only fires in the general direction of the shooter, any one of the rounds that they fire has the potential to hugely reduce the number of rounds that the shooter can fire. Even if they only injure the shooter, that greatly increases the chance that he will either commit suicide or can be shot again or subdued. If they do happen to hit a bystander, it's more likely to be an injury and not a fatality, because they're not specifically aiming for a fatal shot - whereas, the shooter is aiming fatally.

It also draws the fire of the shooter and burns up their ammunition in one specific area - rather than all over the place, or taking shots at other people. If there happen to be two or more armed citizens who can shoot at the gunman from different angles, then it increases the chance of success exponentially.

Having more armed people who can direct fire at the shooter greatly decreases the chance of fatalities among the law-abiding public.
 

ecocks

New member
All good tactical points

However, an anti simply cannot get past the first stumbling block - the gun is NOT ALLOWED! Don't YOU understand that?!? (Sarcasm there folks.)

Is it just me or aren't a lot of these people the same ones who say that if we legalize drugs, the problem will mostly go away? Anyone else see an irony there?

And let me get this straight, wouldn't it actually be safer to shop with Feinstein, Kennedy, Moore and the other elite in these places? Wait a minute, do these people (and/or their bodyguards) get to carry into these same malls?

Enquiring minds want to know.....
 

Unearthed

New member
As a person who carries nearly everywhere I go, I can tell you my biggest fear is the stigma attached to a gun. I find it very scary that if I draw my weapon in response to a person firing at random targets, it is very possible that others will unknowingly label me as another shooter simply because they connect firearms with bad guys. Or, I've also thought about others responding to the scene and shooting the first person they see with a firearm, which very well may be me.

It seems silly to think that an armed citizen returning fire wouldn't at the very least slow down an attackers rate of fire.
 
It is true that some individuals equate gun with danger no matter what. I have a few officers here that get itchy when they see open carry, not as I can blame them with the things they have to deal with. But honestly its an instinctual response for everyone. Past cases where uniformed officers have come upon a scene where off duty or private citizens had guns drawn, the officers in all cases I could remember always followed their force matrix. Physical presence, warning, ect. Many states teach this to their ccw citizens too. However, I've heard many fellow ex-friends and others utter sentences that they would shoot anything with a gun during a panic. GRRR. Honestly I think the chances of running into another ccw person in the area during such a situation is probably pretty rare. Or at least it seems to be. Those cases when it has happened, people were able to recognize and coordinate easy enough. I would have to imagine that the whole mannerism, stance, and feel of someone with a weapon drawn for defense is going to stand out in contrast to a looney toon massacre nut. The police should follow procedure, assuming the commands given are followed.
 

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
49,140
Messages
621,689
Members
74,108
Latest member
USNACCS
Top