“We don’t want to get into the debate over whether more or fewer armed individuals contribute to or detract from a bad situation,” lifehacker.com avers in their how-to-stay-safe-during-a-mass-shooting guide. “However, we did ask our experts what they would tell someone who’s armed to do in a violent situation. Their advice was unanimous: If you’re armed, do the same as they suggest for everyone else [run, hide, fight]. Engaging an assailant should be a last resort unless you’re trained to deal with these types of situations (and even then, their first responsibility may be to get the public out of harm’s way before dealing with the threat at hand.)” That said, they also said . . .
“I know that some people have their own weapons but you can’t ignore the benefits of training, tactical knowledge, strategy and experience. Escape should be the primary goal for anyone who does not possess the traits listed above.”
Really? How much tactical training does it take to shoot someone shooting innocent people? Maybe a lot, maybe not so much, maybe none at all. Are you really going to stand there and think “Nope. I don’t have the experience level required for this situation. Sorry.” This advice ignores a couple of important considerations:
1. Is there anyone with you? If one or more of my daughters are with me, they are Job One. Full stop.
2. Can you live with yourself if you don’t engage the bad guy or guys? I’m not sure I could.
3. How long before the police arrive? If the cops are almost or already on scene, I’m out.
4. Can you make the shot? Depends on a large number of variables: distance to target, availability of cover and concealment, number and placement of nearby innocents, which gun you’re carrying, which gun they’re carrying, etc.
I would submit to you that all of that can and will be calculated in a the blink of an eye. The only question I want to ask here is this: if you’re all by your lonesome, the cops aren’t around, a spree killer is killing innocent people and you think you might have the shot – but you aren’t completely sure – would you still take it? Would you wait and see? Or would you run? [h/t JF]
“Pigeon. It’s what’s for for dinner.”
Sure I would shoot. Since I’m a little bit older I would take the risk, especially to save someone much younger than me.
Know your target, what’s in front of it, and what’s behind it….
Good points. I understand the Medford, OR mall shooter stopped shooting others when confronted by a concealed carrier who drew down on him, but didn’t take the shot because of people behind the shooter.
If clear, hell yes, engage. Stopping the threat doesn’t mean even hitting him. Most of these spree shooters tend to off themselves when faced by almost any direct confrontation. Their goal is to off themselves, not to get shot by someone else. That would ruin their internal vision of themselves going out in a blaze of righteous glory. Getting pummeled by a crowd or shot by a cop/bystander and taken out screaming in pain on a stretcher to face arrest and public condemnation are their deal breakers.
505markf wrote: “I understand the Medford [Clackamas], OR mall shooter stopped shooting others when confronted by a concealed carrier who drew down on him, but didn’t take the shot because of people behind the shooter.”
I would have taken that shot. Why? Because the odds are better that fewer innocents would die if I shot (even if I missed), than if I didn’t and the active shooter kept killing people.
None of The Four Rules for gun safety are absolutes. There are rare times when one or even two of The Rules can and should be violated. This was one of those times.
[Putting my flame-proof suit on now.]
“I would have taken that shot.”
You’d have been wrong.
“Why?”
Because the active shooter had stopped firing and stood down.
The term “active shooter” is part of brain washing propaganda to condition people to think that all people who shoot for sport and have guns are killers. Think about it, aren’t you “active” and aren’t you “shooting” when you’re at the range? Aren’t you a “shooter” who is “active” in life? You should use the term “active killer” as not to support their brainwashing propaganda. Its like the gun grabbers never stop with this nonsense of programming peoples subconscious minds, even effecting the minds of gun owners with these brainwashing techniques.
Agreed. More appropriate terms would be “spree killer,” “mass murderer,” or good old fashioned “terrorist.”
I am sure terrorist is the very best name that is out there.We must start using it at all cost. Label them for what they are.
Not sure about the “terrorist” label. Farago has a post about CT in which he postulates that the powers that be will start labeling the unregistered gun owners as domestic terrorists. The correct term should be “mass murderers.” My $.02.
Wrong! Terrorist is just another label. Disagree with the government….Terrorist! Own firearms…..Terrorist! Believe in the Bill of Rights and a Constitutionalist….Terrorist! Want to take toothpaste with you on a plane…Terrorist!
I get what you’re saying, “active shooter” in the since of active skier or active hobbyist of any kind. Even similar to avid reader. I’ve just never found that term to be an intentional play on words, conflating activity in the shooting sports with spree killing, albeit only by subconscious word association. I’ve always considered it strictly in its intended meaning, namely a murderous shooter whose rampage is ongoing, not just one and done and fled the scene.
It’s like throwing a dart at the wall, then drawing the bull’s eye around it. Suggesting a wordplay plot to disparage firearms owners, among the many actual plots out there designed to do just that, strikes me as writing a coincidental term on the wall, then drawing the conspiracy theory around it.
I understand where you are coming from. I wouldn’t go so far as to call it a conspiracy theory , that’s a bit paranoid. It’s just Nuero Linguistic Programming. It’s the science of using words to shake your unconscious perception. It’s used everyday in marketing and by politicians that talk to you. You conscious mind sees it for what You believe it’s intended. However your subconscious mind sees it differently. The conscious and subconscious work differently. It’s not a conspiracy theory, it’s just a cheap tactic to shape your perception. It’s a technique used by used car salesmen, lawyers and pick up artists and people who come up with the term “active shooter”, it’s about shaping public perception. It’s not a conspiracy theory of some shadow group , it’s a technique you can learn in a library and actively practiced by marketing firms
After reading the linked article, I think this is a great idea. A private entity wants a better police presence in their area, and have chosen to provide the department with additional funding to make it happen. Said private entity has no (explicit) power or discretion over the actual police or the individual officer, and can only suggest what sort of crimes are bothering them.
It would be like a crime ridden neighborhood getting together and funding a local cop shop out of their own pockets because their city is broke, and they want to make sure their area is policed well.
First thing I remind students of is this: having a gun makes you a bullet magnet. Active shooter? As soon as you start shooting back, you draw his focus away from everyone else and you become his primary concern. He will either run to evade you or make you his #1 target. Police arriving on the scene only know that shots are being fired. You have just become a magnet for their bullets too. Same thing if there’s another armed citizen.
If you draw your gun instead of fleeing, you may well save lives, but there is a very high likelihood you’ve committed yourself to martyrdom. if you’re trapped, there may be no other choice.
I wouldn’t worry about the cops. They’ll be securing a perimeter and prepping the body bags while they wait for the shooting to stop. As for the shooter, they almost without exception turn their gun on themselves at the first sign of resistance. They are cowards, after all. If you’re not going to shoot in such a situation, why carry concealed?
Again; go by what has been the history of mass murderers; not conjecture. The mass killers in almost every situation; if you don’t shoot them first; they will shoot themselves once they are confronted with “active resistance”.
So, yeah; family first, then I’ll “run to the sound of guns” to stop the killer as best I can.
5. Are there any innocent third parties behind the shooter, and will any of my shots hit any of them? And will I lose everything I own when they file a lawsuit? And do I happen to be in a “gun free zone” mall, in violation of the trespass laws?
I do not agree that it is my personal responsibility to protect adult strangers who have the same opportunity to carry a firearm as I do, but choose to depend on the state for their personal safety.
I would not hesitate to protect a school yard or playground full of kids from a nutcase/terrorist shooter, but a mall full of adults? Sorry – if I can get out of that situation without using my firearm to defend myself, that is going to be my course of action.
Spot on!
The nearest unarmed adults should rush the guy. If five rush him, three or four will probably survive. They don’t want to carry? Their choice. They aren’t willing to chance being the one who dies? Why should I?
If I’m five feet away I’ll shoot.
If I’m ten feet away and Shannon Watts is five feet away, I’ll run, keeping her between me and the active murderer.
If I’m fifty feet away I’ll run to cover and reassess. Simple.
In general, I don’t disagree with you. However, with your willingness to protect young innocents, I will remind you that every mall I have ever been in has been full of kids and teenagers. Now what?
Except the mall is usually a magnet for young kids; I would bet better than half would be young teenagers.
I’m with you. Field trip of kids at a place I’m at and someone starts shooting? I’m going to look after them. Place full of grown ups that have chosen not to do for themselves? I’m pushing me and mine to safety and that’s that. I don’t wear a uniform and I’m not obligated in any way to intervene. If they try to engage me that’s when I’ll get violent.
III%.
Depends.
And after I’m done filling the Depends, if no one is with me that I need to care for, and I have a good, clear shot I can make without exposing myself, then sure.
But taking a shot and missing draws bad attention. Bad idea.
To your last question: I guess I’d have to consider the risks of missing and hitting an innocent AND (and versus) the benefit or distracting or breaking the stride or resolve of the shooter – and whether that would allow others to escape to cover or make the f@cker slow down and hold still enough for me to get him with the next shot.
Mass shootings are often characterized by absolute chaos. If may be difficult to distinguish between the bad guy and (other) armed good guys, unless you directly witness the bad guy shooting someone. (And, even then, how does one know that the person doing the shooting isn’t an off-duty cop that just happened to be present and is responding as trained?) If you respond, will you be mistaken for the shooter by other armed citizens? Will you be mistaken for the shooter by responding officers (witnesses may have seen only one person holding a gun: you.)
It sucks: there is no easy answer here.
‘CHOOT ‘EM!
+1000!!!
Judging by the size of that barrel, i’d say we have a confirmed sighting of the illusive .9mm
Coffee spew!
It may depend on what you are armed with, and how accurate the gun is. There are times I have nothing but my 22 Mag mini revolver. I would not engage a shooter unless he was in my face, and could get in fallow up shots.
Having your family members would also effect your position. They would come first!
Yeah if he’s got a rifle or body Armor and all I have is my glock 26 I’m probably only shooting if not doing so would mean my death.
Agreed this happens everywhere all the time. I have personally hired police for traffic duty and given them instructions on what to do. But that is only because in our jurisdiction and for liability purposes, I cannot use volunteers to control traffic on a public roadway.
But I do understand the outrage at private payment for selective enforcement. Let’s take this to the next two levels:
Level 1) Pay for an extra cop becase law enforcement is overloaded and underfunded and typically offenses of this type are not pursed by the department.
Level 2) Pay for a extra judge & state prosecutor because the judicial system is overloaded and underfunded and typically offenses of this type are not prosecuted.
Level 3) Pay for an extra prison because the prison system is overloaded and underfunded and typically those convicted of offenses of this type are typically serving on 10% of the sentence.
Can we really separate one from the other two? They are all cut from the same cloth.
In re-reading my post I realized there is a fourth level that is already in wide spread use around the country:
Level 4) Start a PAC and contribute to the campaigns of legislators that will change the laws in the ways you suggest.
Situation dependant is all I can say.
I don’t know. Maybe. It depends…
Virginia has guidance on active shooter situations.
1 – escape
2 – hide
3 – act aggressively
http://m.vaemergency.gov/ready-virginia/stay-informed/active-shooter
They have no option for me to switch to a desktop site, so I can only link to their mobile page.
In the photo, the Officer doesn’t look like he’s cutting the pie well. Or is it just me?
If I’m not sure, the only option left would be to wait and see.
I would kind of like to know where they got their “experts”. If they are the same “experts” who supposedly helped Facebook with their recent policy change, their unanimity is neither surprising nor particularly weighty. That said, facially the advise may not be too bad. You might save more lives by “covering” a crowd of people through an exit than by moving forward to engage and getting yourself shot. THAT said, in response to the specific question.–I can’t say for sure til it happens, but I like to think I would at least stay put (maybe behind cover) until I could see whether I might have the shot, and if I might, go ahead and take it. My usual carry gun is a very short-range proposition, however, so it would have to be a pretty clear field of fire, “friendlies”-wise.
I’m in my late 60’s, I’m not going to run very far, or very fast. I can get down on the ground, but getting up is sometimes a little tricky. And I’ve always been a rotten pistol shot. But to your question, yes I would try to engage. And I would say a little prayer that he will see my gun and run away. I don’t think I would be happy with myself if I was armed, and left others to die.
I would take a shot, if for no other reason than to distract the shooter, until a follow up shot can be taken. I could not live with “what if I”
My CC instructor said “your not a cop” & I can’t argue with that. If the life of a small child was on the line I would step in. Otherwise not having a gun will turn out to be a fatal decision for some, thats just not my problem.
It is as though I live on a different planet: We didn’t invade Iraq because Saddam had WMD. We invaded it because he twice showed intention to invade Saudi Arabia and Kuwait at the first opportunity, which would not shut down the US, but would clobber the economies of Japan and others dependent on Saudi, UAE, and Kuwaiti oil, and therefore disrup the world trading system. We didn’t build up a huge war in Vietnam to make it a better place, but rather to keep face in the cold war, in order to maintain respect and good trade relations with nearby SEATO nations while consciously, Lyndon Johnson noted, boosting Japan’s economy which was about to go socialist: giving Toyota the military light truck contracts for the war saved the company and forestalled a socialist victory in Japan. Good. But not the least altruistic.
We can’t intervene in Mexico? Forget Niger and Nigeria, we have larger problems in our own front and back yards. The high morality talk is BS. What a dream state people fall into once they talk about all the great good we can do abroad. “Physician, heal thyself first.” Defend the constitution. Demand transparency in domestic politics. Fix the tax-spend balance: “The greatest threat to US security is the US national debt,” the general said.
” dependent on Saudi, UAE, and Kuwaiti oil,”
THERE’s your problem: Becoming dependent on anybody. The only known treatment for dependency is abstinence.
How many of those spree killer types have trained for their rampage. If you practice a couple times a month versus them going to a self imposed training plan, you might have a bad day being unprepared. That said, fight if you need and channel the devils fury to survive. If no other choice is there, do what you must – plan to cheat above all.
I’m sure beyond the shadow of a doubt that if I were killed trying to protect somebody that I didn’t know, the person I saved wouldn’t even show up at my funeral. If I survived and was arrested, they wouldn’t contribute a nickle to my defense. If I was injured, they wouldn’t pay a dime of my hospital bills.
Sorry, but I protect me and mine. Everybody else is on his own.
If and when I am faced with a deadly situation, I’ll assess it and make a decision about what to do — fight or get out of Dodge, or fight to get out of Dodge. But I’m not going to put myself in harms way for somebody who doesn’t care about me and never will.
How do I know whether it’s a spree killer or a Defensive Gun Use?
Unless I have eyes on from the beginning, I’m out like a … thing that is out quickly while using cover.
Is there a good analogy for this?
Shoot him? Nah. To do that I’ve got to go to the other side of the world, ‘Nam or Afghanistan, and shoot people attacking people I don’t care about, saving people who might blow me up tomorrow anyway. Can’t risk getting shot defending, well, just ordinary Americans…can I? I mean, does that make any sense? Hey, the cops aren’t going to run in there alone. Might get shot, not get home that night. If he’s a bomber placing a bomb? Well, he might be a wonderful university professor in twenty years, and trusted presidential confident. Are you really going to take out that kind of talent? And anyway, the shoppers milling around in the mall, the parents of kids in elementary schools, don’t have the time or inclination to prepare their own defense, so why should I take the hit?
Something is wrong at multiple levels with the reality the paragraph above reasonably conveys.
My first priority is to GTFO. And, that goes whether I’m alone or with family in tow. Even if my family is not with me, I am STILL obligated to their safety / well-being. Accordingly, I’m getting my ass out of there and home in one piece.
I do not feel any moral obligation to stick around and protect strangers (who, as has been pointed out by another commenter, have CHOSEN to not protect themselves).
If escape is not an immediate option, cover / concealment is #2 on the list for me.
If cornered or forced to confront, then it’s game-on.
That all said, if I happen to be in the immediate area / proximal to the bad guy, and the identity / context is VERY clear to me… AND I could take a clear and “safe” shot…. I might just do that. But, I don’t see that confluence of circumstances being very likely in a crowded and chaotic scenario. “Beating feet” rules the day in most cases.
If it’s happening right in front of me, the decision is made for me: I fight. Good guys fight.
If it happens elsewhere, I provide cover, gets as many folks out of dodge with me as I can. Like Dirk, moving to engage a bad guy that I haven’t seen is a recipe for death and disaster.
Work is the same problem- in order to be armed, I would have to run like hell to the parking lot. Once I get there, I have sacrificed all of my information and awareness of the situation, and would have to reenter cold. Sorry, coworkers, I’m not going to do that.
If I have my family with me then I’m getting them out as fast as I can…if I’m by myself and the shooter is not close by I am also getting away as fast as possible…the gun I carry is to protect my family and myself nobody else…shellfish, maybe ?
My friends and family come first. If they’re with me when crap goes down, I make sure they can get to safety above all else. “Stay low, stay quiet, move as quickly and as quietly as you can away from the shooter”.
If no loved ones are present and I happen to be armed, slightly different story.
First priority will ALWAYS be, for me, to get clear. GTFO as quickly and quietly as I can. If escape is not possible, I’ll look for cover or concealment (in that order). I will fight if I have to. It’s not something I want to do and it’s a situation I hope I never find myself in, but it is a possibility.
I do not carry a weapon in public right now, because I don’t feel I”m proficient enough to hit my target reliably. I need more practice. Once I feel I’m capable enough, I’ll be carrying.
Accuracy is a function of distance. At bad breath distances accuracy isn’t much of an issue.
If I am bad breath distance from a spree killer either God hates me or I have the worst imaginable luck.
If that’s true, then god must have hated all those children and teachers in Newtown — all shot at point blank distances.
Bad breath distance is where most of the killing happens.
It’s not just Conn., NY, NJ, MD, RI, or Cali….add Illinois to the list, as we have a terrible bill floating in the state house now– HB4715– which not only attempts to tighten gun laws, but make it illegal to purchase ammo w/out PROVING one owns the gun for which the ammo is being purchased, and PROVING it is REGISTERED. No certificate of proof, no ammo. Also tighter restrictions on who can own/purchase, and attaching a felonious charge on those who don’t register or fall under a “prohibited persons” description– and that description has been left WIDE open in some parts.
You are over-reacting and/or did not read the article closely.
Facebook will not be hiring any police officers, they are giving the city funds to hire an officer to do community policing, truancies, etc in the larger community as a whole.
This is no where near what you seem to think: a Facebook Police Officer who obeys only Zuckermann and Associates.
General police militarization is a much more dangerous issue.
Sure, would try to get the drop on him/her if I can.
I would at least attempt to take the guy down, given a chance to do so successfully.
I have read a lot from this page. Being new I am learning a lot. Before being a gun owner and reading some of the articles I would.have said yes. But now not likely unless I had no other way I am out.
I bought a pt 111 in 2002….never had any firing issues and am thinking about using it for ccw…it does shoot low and takes some practice on how to use the sights accurately…buddies of mine shot it without practice and were able to hit targets, with tight groups hear the center…
Liberals and socialists are for hanging.
WTFAYTA?
Why can’t they do these active shooter drills using the old “miles” system? I am sure the army has a bunch of them that they are not using anymore.
you know put a AR-15 mounted with mile in each classroom [of teachers that know how to shoot] and have the simulated active shooter[s] engage the school [all wearing “miles” of course]
but i know the answer before i asked it, this would prove beyond all doubt [not that we need proof] that armed teachers can protect the kids better than a “book or bullet proof white boards”
Assuming he’s in range, under the conditions provided, of course. If I’m not in range, I would not attempt to close with unless the situation was particularly nasty, maybe police response simply not being likely for some time and innocents in the kill zone. Not likely. If it looks like a really bad day, such as that mall attack, try to cover the escape of who you can. You’d probably end up dead anyway. But what do I know…
If I’m with loved ones and we can get out, we are GTFO quick. If trapped I will shoot.
The courts have ruled the police do not have a responsibility to individually protect us (except for politicians). Too many variables to figure out: Are there other CHP’s in the area? Do I look like a bad guy? Hell cops are so trigger happy they shoot old guys getting a cane out of a pickup truck! Or a couple of women making little money delivering newspapers (not even the same color or make of bad guys vehicle).
If a cop sees you in a shooting situation with a gun I’d put money you are going to get ventilated.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
But I will be a good witness!
One day later from this post, most online vendors are OUT OF STOCK of steel case cheap stuff. Price a few days ago was 219.00 per 1K. Lets see how high it goes with this Ukraine situation. Looks like another ammo drought on hand. Prices still high for all other calibers. 22LR tough to find. Hope and change keeps spreading like cancer. Yes We F’ing Can.
What? No Cats and Dogs in support of Connecticut?
I could totally pull this off. I have one of those cats who will not give me the satisfaction of a reaction when I balance things on her head for yucks. Cell phone, pack of smokes, dirty old sock, bag of Doritos… I probably couldn’t balance the Mossberg on her head without some kind of tragedy, but I’ll bet the LCP would stay put.
“Look! It’s the “E” that got away from Dear Leader!”
“Waste it!”
I’m not usually with loved ones around here, and I would feel an obligation to make the shot and save lives. So the answer here depends on 2 variables.
1) Distance. If the spree killer is within 20 yds, I can make the shot. That is just a fact that I trust. If the shooter is beyond that. I might hide behind a corner or concealment in his eventual path and wait until he closes to 5 yds. A mag dump of 14 .45 Critical Defense rds does a lot of damage within 5 yds.
2) What is behind my target. If I can make the shot, it should be clean, but It would have to be very congested for me to not take the shot. Dropping to a knee or the ground gives a good safe angle which only becomes safer the closer he gets. Just make sure you hit, because you can’t move quickly if you do this.
Remember. The faster the shooter is down, the less people he hurts, and the faster you can help give aid to the injured. You are the first responder. That doesn’t just mean covering security. Carry supplies in a small belt pouch to help with gunshot wounds. You may save more than you think.
Do you use one of those Para-Ordnance doublestacks? Not meant to derail but I am genuinely curious.
Nope, XD.45 compact. 13+1, probably my favorite pistol I’ve ever fired.
I would not be hesitant to take the shot under 25 yards with an XDM. I never thought of myself as a great shot or great hunter until I saw other people miss the target completely at shorter ranges.
I feel confident enough to take a shot at 25 meters because that is the distance I learned to shoot a pistol at. Is also the reason why I am baffled why people practice at 7 or 3 yards.
If the only news you really look at is gun related.
If when you were in school you found the way around school computers filtering to look at gun sites (look it up in the other languages).
Youve ever seriously considered making a part for your gun.
You gone back and read all of the back pages on a gun blog. (Thefirearmblog)
And are going to do the same for other gun blog sites.
Youve read all of the pages on world.guns.ru
you know which manufacturers arent hand biased.
You know all of the guns in a game before you look it up.
You watch robocop and hear that the armor is only damaged by a 50 caliber and see that none of them had anything that would do damage to him.
Youve been thinking of your comment for this page for the last couple of days and got more than one answer.
My policy for anywhere I go, for any situation.
Can I get my family out? If yes, then I’m out.
If I can’t, I’m going to fight like hell to get them an escape hatch.
The rest of the people I don’t care one way or the other about. Only family and close friends matter
Ideally, I would fight from out of sight. Find cover/concealment and shoot him from the back/side. If I was unlucky enough to be out in the open in the vicinity, I think the only choice is draw and dump.
The question can only be answered by the individual, depending on his/her willingness and ability to engage an active shooter. Much depends on the circumstances as well.
Tough call to make, no matter what.
+1 Dirk Diggler. Precisely my thoughts. And I HATE going to my local malls. Gang heaven,let alone a so-called “spree killer” figuring in the equation.
Another good reason for silencers to be removed from the NFA.
No wife, no kids. Can’t run very fast. Bad back, so I won’t be carrying any injured people or little kids. That said, it depends. I will definitely shoot if I am able, especially if the cops are a long way off. But, if the shooter is in another part of the mall completely I would first try to herd the sheeple in my part to safety. Then work my way back to herd some more.
If when I get to the shooter’s area and everyone is already dead, I would have to take cover and wait.
If he kills himself, good, no lawsuit for me.
If he starts moving in my general direction, shoot him.
If he starts moving the other way, as to kill more people, shoot him.
If there are any people still alive in the area, especially kids, shoot him.
Can’t help the dead. Ideally I’d prefer if he killed himself. Don’t need those complications in my life. It doesn’t help if I leave the sheeple in their little groups to be targets. If I moved to shoot him first and he kills me instead, then I just left a bunch of scared, confused people to huddle down and die instead of getting them outside.
Also, the less people in the immediate area to criticise my shoot after the fact, the better. Gives the situation time to calm down too. Rushing gets you shot.
Don’t like leaving people to die in the first place, but that’s the way it is. Trying to save everyone just gets more people killed.
Just scary as hell- and to think Boston was the BIRTHPLACE for the fight against the tyranny of the crown!!?? The forefathers are spinning like tops in their graves For shame, for SHAME Massachusetts!
Am I the only one to point out that you might not see the shooter, and the whole “wait around the corner and pump him full of lead” strategy might just result in you ventilating a plain clothes or off duty officer…or maybe even a fellow CCW citizen? In fact…if you shoot anyone, you are probably just about as likely to do this as shoot the actual bad guy..I’d probably give you even odds.
People keep saying “if the cops are a long way off” or something to that extent….how do you know where they are if you are in a mall/Walmart? For all you know there were already officers in the building or parking lot.
I’m not voicing my opinion, just adding a few more things to considering in making your own.
The dog kinda looks like the stuffed dog from Scrubs.
Back in the 90s a guy sitting in his car at the mall saw a guy run past being chased by a guy with a gun. Mr TakeCharge proceeded to jump out and run over to where the guy with the gun had the other guy on the ground begging for help. Mr TakeCharge put a round into Mr Gun and saved Mr HelpMe on the ground.
Turns out Mr HelpMe was a wanted perp and Mr Gun was a US Marshal trying to arrest him.
Mr TakeCharge might still be serving his 20 year sentence for shooting Mr Gun, albeit with the best intentions.
Mind your own business until the barrel is pointed at you.
“1) Am I alone?” I agree. My family is Priority 1. If they are there, then: a) collect them; b) find cover, or get out; c) if unable to exit the area, defend as necessary. (Note: this does not preclude the idea of taking the shot if it becomes available/necessary.)
“2) Can you live with yourself if you don’t engage the bad guy/guys?” As one who has chosen to get trained/certified to carry, I have taken the responsibility for the defense of myself, me family, and possibly the community upon myself. I have a moral duty to do so.
“3) How long before the police arrive?” If I see blue shirts and/or SWAT gear, I’m staying put with my pistol and permit ready. Once the police are on scene, I don’t need to be getting in the way. Not sure about the “almost” bit; it’s almost impossible to know if the police are “almost” there, and one 911 dispatcher’s “almost” is another’s “it’ll be a few.”
“4) Can you make the shot?” Col. Cooper’s Four Rules still apply. If the situation says “engage,” do so with the safety of yourself and the public in mind. It may be a defensive situation, but you are still responsible for every bullet you fire, and bullets do not have rewind buttons.
“… you think you might have the shot – but you aren’t completely sure – would you still take it? ”
Not completely sure? Then I’m not shooting.
Piecemeal repealing of NFA might not be as satisfying, but smaller victories are still victories, and require debates on specific merits & dangers. It’s much easier to dwell on the value of prevention of ear injury, without letting the arguments slide into genuine Assault Rifles.
There’s also this thing called ‘compromise’, which needn’t be permanent.
Family comes first.
If I’m by myself I’d probably be more likely to act. If there’s a shot, I’m taking it. Shooting at a bad guy through groups of innocent people isn’t the best course of action. What am I? An officer of the NYPD?
There are two elements right? One ethical, one legal. And they are not always coextensive. E.g., I would take the shot, even at risk of hitting an innocent, if it was evident that in not doing so more innocents are going to get struck and I have to act now. If I was not noticed and could move to a better spot, I would do that.
I would hope that any unarmed people would be staying low.
As far as the legal. Not sure about every state. As far as criminal liability, there is the doctrine of transferred intention. There was a self defense shooting a few years back that I remember. One guy gets buzzed into a gun store and then holds the door open letting in two armed associates. The owner draws and ends up firing back. One of the owner’s shots went through the window and struck a kid killing him. The owner was not charged. Instead the robbers were all charged with 1st degree murder of the kid. The logic being that the owner’s intent was self-defense, and this was lawful in the circumstance, and hence his culpability in the child’s death is measure by his lawful intent. Whereas an armed robber by definition threatens or uses deadly force, his intent is unlawful and he is responsible for the consequent of his actions even if he didn’t pull the trigger.
Never looked up any civil lawsuit though. The gunstore is still there, same owner.
This was in California FWIW.
Le sigh….
It’s not that hard, Malloy. The writing on the wall doesn’t say anything great about his future, or CT’s.
If History and logic are any teachers, it is pretty evident to myself and a lot of other folks I know that, as Henry Seward, the Senator from New York said of the Civil War, an “irrepressible conflict” is in the making. There is a clearcut”we” and “them”…We want to preserve the Constitution, the rule of law, and stand for the values and qualities that have made the United States the exceptional country that it is.
“They” want to “fundamentally transform” our country into a godless, lawless, third rate welfare dictatorship.
In order to stop that from becoming our fate as a nation, we will have to shove back every time they push, and, like the series of events that preceded the Civil War, eventually there will come a point where coming to blows will be inevitable. Personally, I think that has been the plan of Obama, his minions, and the big money globalists behind him all along.
Agreed on all four points, and an addendum to point #4:
If I can’t make the shot, I will close the range until I can if at all possible.
My CHL is for me and my family. I’m not a cop or trained safety officer. Run, hide, defend. What’s bound to happen eventually is an active shooter engages a CHL holder, but during the fog of combat, the “good guy” is mistaken by either cops, witnesses or other CHL holders as the bad guy. You could then have friendly-fire through confusion. But the point is, most people can obtain a CHL and are either ignorant of it or unwilling; that’s their fate. Don’t drive your car empty and expect someone to offer gas. Take care of yourself and your family.
Phil, I agree with you, however your post got me thinking. We should all be armed to protect ourselves. But if everyone felt as we do, who would shoot the bad guy?
Job one: Get yourself and those near you to cover ASAP.
Job two: this is difficult. The bottom line is that upon encountering someone shooting back this killer will either kill themselves, run away, or shoot at you. All of these possibilities have one thing in common: unarmed bystanders are no longer being shot by a psycho.
For me…that is why I would fire my weapon. The trouble is that you would likely be forced to choose to fire in such a way that you cannot guarantee your bullets won’t hit innocents. Not sure what I would do if forced to make that choice. Clear shot with no innocents beyond my target…no doubt I shoot.
The CT .gov has painted itself into a corner. They must either enforce the new law (and deal with the sequellae, which will not be pretty) or back off. If they back off by simply choosing to selectively enforce or not enforce at all, they have de-legitimized their own authority. The other choices are to repeal the law voluntarily or by court ruling. No matter what happens, they lose face (or worse).
You get the feeling that many of these people would sincerely rather die than lose face. They have the power to restore peace to Connecticut, but they won’t do it, because admitting a wrong is beyond them. The sin of pride is mighty powerful.
Thanks for addressing the review Mr. Nguyen. I just purchased a .300 BLK upper & had been searching the World Wide Web for an optic catering to the .300 BLK & within my $500 & under targeted budget. I will be doing more reading & research on this optic with hopes of purchasing one. Thanks again for addressing the review & offering to back up the quality & standards of your company & it’s products.
Thanks,
Jay
I despise crossfit. I like the underlying ideas and I think that the lack of specialization is a wonderful thing. But they go about it in an extremely dangerous way. It’s all times and there is a huge emphasis on doing as many reps as you can. That would be fine, except that most of the exercises are done with weights (significant amounts if the person is strong enough). Form is critical when dealing with weights, and poor form can lead to severe injuries.
Naturally, form will be sacrificed for speed. All of this can be mitigated with so wine watching you closely, sure, but the mentality is fundamentally wrong. It doesn’t help that crossfit members have a similar mentality to the incredibly confrontational founder of the movement, basically that if you get injured, it’s because you’re weak an so you deserve it.
It works incredibly well for those who are lucky enough to avoid injury, but every time you do a crossfit class, you risk destroying your body, and the risk only increases as you get stronger and use more weight. That, coupled with the atrocious mentality with regard to injuries, means that crossfit is dangerous and not worth it.
Crossfit would be great if it were not for the corner-cutting on proper form. I’ve actually done their “workout of the day” before when I can’t run due to inclement weather or something. I’ve always kept proper form and not worried about how fast I’m doing it, though. It’s pretty hard stuff, but the emphasis on reps over form is unacceptable.
But yea, physical fitness should be just as important as marksmanship if you want to survive a violent attack or a SHTF situation, or just compete in 3-gun matches.
THAT is one of the most beautiful pieces of prose I’ve ever seen.
I doff my hat to those responsible.
NRA Proud! Yes it is!
I like tennis for IDPA cross training. It develops explosive speed from a standing position, build the shoulders and forearms, as well as the quads and calves. If I’m not shooting; I’m either running, cycling, or playing tennis.
Really, any other physical activity will work. The squads are usually full of fat (70+lbs overweight) smokers. Of course I like the physically demanding stage with the max movement per the rule book.
Way back when I used to send my measly money to the NRA, it was ALWAYS earmarked to the ILA, and not the NRA in general….
Pretty dog.
Someone get that man a bowl of Crestor. STAT
PTC: This is for you, well deserved:
http://www.titantalk.com/forums/attachments/war-stories/140321d1337599797-how-not-drive-mustang-jackass-award2.jpg
I Believe MD is a lost cause for conservatives and moved to Texas. I am glad I did and pray for you and my friends in Maryland.
“Hold my beer, watch this.”
I’ll admit I haven’t owned a suppressor yet. I’d like to see them off the NFA and might even jump through the hoops to own one some day, but not yet.
Having said that, this looks like a solution in search of a problem. I can’t imagine a situation where I personally would want something to be even more complicated. It’s about all I can do to keep track of five or six 10/22 magazines. I don’t need three extra suppressor baffles getting lost in my “miscellaneous gun stuff” box. So personally, I’d pass.
But I do see the appeal of having it be easily disassembled for cleaning and maintenance.
$200K a year for ONE STINKING FLATFOOT!!!! That’s insane. Dude squeaks by with a HS diploma. Spends 20 weeks getting indoctrinated in the “Us vs them” academy and then gets to suck $200K a year out of the economy while being allowed to ignore the law and abuse society? What a racket.
I agree 100% with your review. I swapped the stock trigger with a Geissele SD-3G. If you put one of these triggers you will throw rocks at the bump fire stock. I also swapped out the Magpul stock for a VLTOR IMOD (just one of my favorite stocks). I own both an HK 416 Upper and a complete MR556A1. The Sig has been as reliable as both. While I still like the slightly better accuracy of the MR556A1, it isn’t a deal breaker to use the Sig. Sig has truly outdone themselves. I bought my 516 for $1350+ tax. So for the price of a good DI AR, you can get a good piston gun…
Why is this a story?
I like shooting and owning guns very much. I think a gun is an excellent and effective way to defend yourself/property/loved ones. I have given this a lot of thought over the years and have decided for myself that I will not use my guns in this way. What you want to do is up to you.
Hmm, this is a peculiar relic of certain strains of protestantism.
It is interesting that in medieval ages and in Catholic thought, as well as the thought of most Anglicans and Reformed, hunting and fishing were allowed on Sundays as a matter of recreation (though they distinguished between “quiet hunting” and “clamorous hunting”, the latter being the sort of ostentatious hunting done by nobility, like fox hunting in England)
And activity strictly necessary to procure food, etc was allowed too. So one wonders when and where the notion came to be that any games, recreation, etc, basically anything other than going to Church and being somber sitting at home came to be seen as violating the Lord’s day.
Sad thing is, if you took away the scar and cleaned her up, she would look reasonably attractive. But she made her choices to take the path she’s headed down, and probably will die on. I’m all for ‘getting help’ but there’s only so many times you can do that before losing patience.
Tom
It is pretty much what has been talked about. Here is a link on their website http://www.gdsi.co/page55.html to the following press release from January…I only copied the Title and the first couple paragraphs.
Global Digital Solutions Announces GDSI Gatekeeper, A Revolutionary Suite of Technology-Enhanced Services That Offer Digital, Web-Based, Small Arms Safety and Security Solutions for Commercial and Military-Related Markets
Gatekeeper’s encrypted digital locking device, secure online tracking feature and cloud-enabled databases will address growing needs of customers in a multibillion-dollar, global marketplace
PALM BEACH, Fla., January 23, 2014 /PRNewswire/ — Global Digital Solutions, Inc. (GDSI), a company that is positioning itself as a leader in providing cyber arms manufacturing, complementary security and technology solutions and knowledge-based, cyber-related, culturally attuned social consulting in unsettled areas, today announced GDSI Gatekeeper, a revolutionary suite of technology-enhanced services that offer personalized, digital small arms safety and security solutions in commercial and military-related markets.
GDSI Gatekeeper, which combines advanced Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) technology with web-based wireless capabilities, will provide commercial and military customers with three essential safety and security benefits:
• Encrypted, password-protected, digital, trigger-locking capability;
• Secure, real-time online tracking; and
• Encrypted, cloud-enabled databases.
This is my note not part of the release:
Personalized gun control!!!!!