| RotoGuru Politics Forum View the Forum Registry XML Get RSS Feed for this thread | Self-edit this thread |
|
| 0 |
Subject: Critical thinking skills...a thing of the past??? Posted by: sarge33rd - [99331714] Fri, Dec 07, 2007, 12:54 By now I'm sure, most all of you have heard about and are familiar with, the tragedy at the Omaha shopping mall recently. On a local Texas motorcycle forum, M-A-N-Y are "blaming" gun control laws and the lack of persons with CHL (Concealed Handgun Licenses), for the fact that the shooter wasnt stopped almost immediately. I of course, have taken the opposite view. I blame the shooter. (Well duh.) Further, I contend that 1/2 dz locals with CHLs, opening fire in a mall crowded with Christmas shoppers, would have ADDED tothe carnage, not reduced it. Why do I believe this? When I went through MP training many years ago, it was explained that "most" gun battles (rare as they are) would occur at ranges UNDER 15'. (The distance acropss a room.) Conversation with multiple LEOs (Law Enforcement Officers), leads me to believe that the majority will actually occur at ranges under 10'. Yet, over 70% of the shots fired, will miss their intended targets. This, from persons who can and will score better than 90-95% hits, on the range, at 25'. Why? Fear, adrenalin, nerves...all combine to radically alter the dynamics. If trained professionals, score under 30% hits at 10; range when under fire themselves, how can that store clerk with a CHL, or that Propane Salesman with a CHL, possibly expect to do better? I maintain, that if 6 CHL holders had been present, and unloaded their weapons (lets for the sake of argument make it easy and assume 6-shot revolvers), thats 36 additional bullets flying through the malls interior airspace. Meaning, at least 30 additional rounds, having missed their intended targets, and travelling "randomly" through the mall. I cannot, envision this as being a "good thing". Yet, when I put that argument forth, I was challenged to produce studies which would prove it. *scratching head* The forum in question, in almost 100% subscribed to by Texans. A predominantly right-wing bunch as we all know. I found it rather odd, that those same people who decry large government, who decry "wasted tax expenditures" are demanding "studies" to support what common sense, and postings from a few local LEOs, will backup. Have we as a popultion, truly lost the ability to engage in honest deductive reasoning, and critical thinking???????? | |||||||
| 1 | sarge33rd ID: 99331714 Fri, Dec 07, 2007, 12:56 | footnote: I will add that I withdrew from that discussion, when posters began blaming Nancy Pelosi. (Seems like some will reach at ANYTHING, to try and cast political blame.) | ||||||
| 2 | walk ID: 7952415 Fri, Dec 07, 2007, 13:14 |
Hey sarge33rd. I think the folks who think that CHLs would have helped matters, as you have alluded to, have no idea what would happen if there had been cross-fire, retaliatory shooting, etc., but I believe what you say that it'd be much, much WORSE. I think those folks believe they have they poise and calm to know how to deal with that situation but fail to realize that many folks who would wind up with CHLs would not (let alone the fact that these dudes may also become erratic under pressure, as you suggest, and I believe). Ultimately, though, I do take a different view. It's not that guns kill people or people kill people, it's that it's tons EASIER for People WITH guns to kill people. It's more difficult to go on a machete killing spree or a pocket knife killing spree or a billy club killing spree or a pepper spray spree. It's possible, but LESS likely to be done with as many injuries, deaths in so little time. I don't know how to get handguns and semi-auto weapons and such out of the hands of the populace, except law enforcement, but except for hunting rifles and such, IMO, there's just no NEED for guns. This "hobby" does more harm than good. Sheet, if I feel this way about religion, I find it a dawdle to feel this way about guns. Our constitution should be changed. The spirit of the amendment was to make sure that the gov't could not fcuk you over by storming into your home and your town could not create a militia. It was not to give us all the option of toting around some gun to give us woodies. | ||||||
| 3 | Seattle Zen ID: 49112418 Fri, Dec 07, 2007, 13:29 |
I must say that your argument is well reasoned and perhaps the best I've read from you on any topic. Are you really surprised that a bunch of conservatives are unable to accept a contrary point of view? I believe that since so many gun right advocates frequently make this same argument immediately after mass murders like this, including the NRA itself, that they actually are happy these tragedies occur. Strike while the bodies are still warm, take advantage of every opportunity to advance the Agenda: absolute and complete unfettered access to any and every firearm by anyone everywhere without exception. I think very little of the NRA. I do not believe the Second Amendment creates an individual right to possess firearms and even if it did, states and the federal government can (and should) severely limit this right. | ||||||
| 4 | walk ID: 7952415 Fri, Dec 07, 2007, 13:29 | twtex forums, eh, sarge33rd? Found it. Dang. Shaking my sissy-boy head. I like the dude with the bear attack story. He knows he could've taken out the Omaha shooter cos of his hunting experiences. | ||||||
| 5 | leggestand Leader ID: 451036518 Fri, Dec 07, 2007, 13:48 |
Sarge - I tend to agree with you on this, but I am going to play devil's advocate: if 6 CHL holders had been present, and unloaded their weapons (lets for the sake of argument make it easy and assume 6-shot revolvers), thats 36 additional bullets flying through the malls interior airspace. Meaning, at least 30 additional rounds, having missed their intended targets, and travelling "randomly" through the mall. I cannot, envision this as being a "good thing". Yet, when I put that argument forth, I was challenged to produce studies which would prove it. The above assumes worst case scenario, so, to be fair, we also need to assume a best case scenario, which would of been 1 shot/bullet from a CHL could of ended the killing spree far earlier than what actually happened. IMO, the "actual" outcome would of been somewere in the middle, and it would of been likely for a stray bullet to wound or kill people, but in turn, it is also likely that the shooting spree would of ended early, thus saving a couple lives. This is my answer for this specific instance... On a more idealogical level, though, like I said, I tend to agree with you and not the Texans. I don't like guns and I don't feel more comfortable if I knew people had the ability to perform vigilante justice while I am an innocent bystander. It also opens the can of worms that we see more and more with police officers nowadays in regards to "I thought he had a gun." | ||||||
| 6 | walk ID: 7952415 Fri, Dec 07, 2007, 13:56 |
I dunno about your hypothetical, leggestand. The elements of unfamiliarity and alarm in this type of situation create a host of possibilities that make it very difficult to predict what the outcomes of a host of dudes with CHLs would be. I tend to assume random acts of unintended violence and harm. In this case, as in some others, the patrons also do not have a strong idea as to where the shots are even coming from. Additionally, adding CHLs to the equation does not factor in the increased incidence of folks pulling their legal firearms to settle disputes or, as you suggest, defend themselves when no defense was necessary ("I thought he had a gun") thus adding to violence and harm...outside of these infrequent mass killing spree incidents. Folks are very passionate about their firearms and rights to own and use them. It'd be tough for someone like me to go a forum where the majority have this emotional connection to this right and also some degree of confidence that this right would mitigate violent offenders, be it a burglary, carjacking, massacre, etc. I would love Barbara Eden to do an I Dream of Jeanie and blink all of the handguns and non-hunting rifles away (and cancers, and bad rulers, and pedophiles, and and and...). | ||||||
| 7 | sarge33rd ID: 99331714 Fri, Dec 07, 2007, 14:08 |
TWTEX = Two-Wheeled-Texans. Good job walk. lmao Zen...Are you HONESTLY saying that I put forth an argument you found to be reasonable, intelligent and sensible? Damn, there went my bad reputation. | ||||||
| 8 | walk ID: 7952415 Fri, Dec 07, 2007, 14:18 | Make that "two-wheeled texas with guns!" Well, you were one of the lone rangers there taking the disseneting view about the viability of folks with CHLs being able to mitigate the massacre. Good for you. Of course, I take the route of: "no guns, fewer massacres, fewer easier non-massacre homocides." That would not fly too well with that crowd, but it's a "civil liberty" that we can learn to live without. "You'll get over it. By a video game." | ||||||
| 9 | sarge33rd ID: 99331714 Fri, Dec 07, 2007, 14:20 |
I'm of the firm belief walk...Outlasw guns, and only outlaws will have guns. I believe in the right to own a firearm. But I also believe that excercising such ownership, obligates you to a certain degree of responsibility, which is all too often unseen in those who own the weaponry. | ||||||
| 10 | sarge33rd ID: 99331714 Fri, Dec 07, 2007, 14:32 |
re post 5: Is it possible leg, that the first shot fired would have hit the gunmen and put an end to the debacle? Of course it is. From my conversations with LEO professionals, I'd put the odds of a non-combat trained CHL holder engaging a shooter in a crowded mall, and inflicting a fatal hit with their first shot....right alongside the odds of Congress convening tomorrow and abolishing the IRS and Federal Income Tax. I do not say that to be facetious, I say it because I think the odds are pretty damn close to being identical. Cut/paste, of two tales from LEOs, re Officer involved shootings: Sarge, you are right about the stress, adrenaline, and the likely results. Even trained professionals can be affected by this situation. Several years ago my dad was a dispatcher for a local PD which had annual qualifications, but no on-going training. One night two officers were detaining an individual in a bar when he pulled a knife on them. At a range of 2 to 3 feet both officers emptied the clips in their pistols... the un-injured suspect then surrendered to the officers. Fortunately the place was not crowded, and while the neon lights, pool tables, and walls all suffered casualties no people were hit. At the next council meeting funds were approved to build a training facility with a range and fund an on-going proficiency program. posted in response to my post: Originally Posted by sarge33rd when I went through MP training many years ago, it was explained to us that "most" gun fights take place at a range of approx 15'. (The distance across a room.) Yet somehow, it seems that something on the order of 70% of all rounds fired in these engagements...miss their intended targets. THAT my friends, is what stress does. The carnage I would expect from maybe 1/2 dz untrained individuals whipping out sidearms in a mall, would be downright frightening in the extreme. and one I culled from a local LEO yesterday, after he purchased a new motorcycle from us. Originally Posted by sarge33rd LEO. related a tale of 2 Shreveport Officers responding to a Domestic Dispute. As they arrived, the "perp" fled the house while brandishing a handgun. He took the officers under fire, as he made his way across the street. 2 Officers, armed with Glock 9mm (16 rd mags and 1 in the chamber) emptied their weapons at a range which began at approximately 5' and wound up at approx 20'. 1 round hit the perp in the heart. The other 33? Missed. Now...lets imagine those 33 stray rounds in a mall, crowded with Christmas shoppers. I would dare say, and will maintain, that the tragedy would have been far worse. And no, I dont have a study to confirm it. I dont need a government or university study, to tell me what I already know. The conclusion drawn by these people?.... Maybe we shouldn't call the police? A response, I sincerely hope was meant tongue-in-cheek...though from the majority of responses, I fear that it wasnt. | ||||||
| 11 | walk ID: 7952415 Fri, Dec 07, 2007, 14:34 | I'm sorta okay with that scenario, sarge. I want the guns to go extinct, and over time, they eventually would (if there's a way to acutally get them). It's the lawmen who are supposed to deal with the outlaws, not a bunch of macho or bumling wanna-be-macho citizens, most of whom are ill-prepared to handle such situations. In Canada, England etc., that's the scenario, only outlaws have guns. Fewer gun-related deaths. Our country is truly "Guncrazy" (just saw that movie again the other day, Drew Barrymore and James LeGross). | ||||||
| 12 | Tree ID: 42115715 Fri, Dec 07, 2007, 16:14 |
I believe in the right to own a firearm. But I also believe that excercising such ownership, obligates you to a certain degree of responsibility, which is all too often unseen in those who own the weaponry. similar to how i believe. but for the most part, there is no reason to carry a gun on your person, concealed, or otherwise. there's also no reason for things like AK-47s. are you going deer hunting with that thing? not likely... there HAS to be a fine line, and a fine balance, and people on both sides of the aisle seem to not understand that. there's also no reason why your gun shouldn't be locked - both a trigger lock, and in a locked cabinet. to those morons who say that people with a CHL would have helped the situation, you might want to let them know that if Robert Hawkins didn't have access to a gun in the first place, NONE of this would have happened. | ||||||
| 13 | rockafellerskank Dude ID: 27652109 Fri, Dec 07, 2007, 16:31 | I think it's likely 2+ of the CHL's would have shot (or missed at) each other. You hear shots and see a dude with a gun firing, Blam. Blam. oops. | ||||||
| 14 | sarge33rd ID: 99331714 Fri, Dec 07, 2007, 17:04 |
There;s that point rfs, then there's the responding LEO just arriving on scene: 1 dude with an AK-47. (I have my service sidearm) 3 dudes with what appear to be revolvers. (I'm thinking I'll engage them first, and wait for backup before engaging the dude with the AK.) IOW...the engaging CHL holders are IMHO, HIGHLY likely to be shot by responding LEOs. | ||||||
| 15 | Myboyjack ID: 8216923 Fri, Dec 07, 2007, 17:22 | So, if I understand the echo chamber here correctly - Had you guys been confronted with the loon in the Nebrasks mall you'd have been grateful that he alone had a gun? Right. | ||||||
| 16 | sarge33rd ID: 99331714 Fri, Dec 07, 2007, 17:24 |
Of course not MBJ. I'd like to think the LEOs wouldnt be far/long in responding. What liability (if any) would a CHL holder face, if in the course of returning fire, it was demonstrated that one of their rounds injured/killed someone? | ||||||
| 17 | Myboyjack ID: 8216923 Fri, Dec 07, 2007, 17:33 |
What liability (if any) would a CHL holder face, if in the course of returning fire, it was demonstrated that one of their rounds injured/killed someone? Who cares? I know if a crazy man with an AK-47 is firing at me and my loved ones while I X-mas shop, the furthest thing from my mind would be whether my homeowners insurance would cover the damages. Wait for law enforcement? LOL. I can see it now. "No sarge, don't use your weapon. LEO will be here soon. He won't kill but 8 or 9 of us in the meantime." There have been enough of these incidents in the past decade or so to see that deaths are prevented, not increased when citizens with guns, off-duty cops, off-duty security personell, etc. take action. I guraantee you that the people in that mall would have been grateful if some citizen other than the murdering fogger had a gun and had used it. | ||||||
| 18 | sarge33rd ID: 99331714 Fri, Dec 07, 2007, 17:38 | and I can see the lawsuits piling up (if not criminal charges) from those people injured by the CHL holders actions. Cripes, we already get sued by burglars who break into our homes and we shoot them. Last thing I want/need, is to respond to such a scenario, and find myself facing 1/2 dozen different lawsuits. | ||||||
| 19 | Seattle Zen ID: 49112418 Fri, Dec 07, 2007, 17:51 |
So, if I understand the echo chamber here correctly - Had you guys been confronted with the loon in the Nebraska mall you'd have been grateful that he alone had a gun? Right. My answer depends on how much longer I had to spend in this mall and how much longer I had to spend in Nebraska. Seriously, I would prefer that no one had a gun. Secondly, the fewer guns the better, so yes, I'd rather that he be the only shooter than having John Q. Public join in on the shooting. | ||||||
| 20 | sarge33rd ID: 99331714 Fri, Dec 07, 2007, 18:02 |
Who cares? I know if a crazy man with an AK-47 is firing at me and my loved ones while I X-mas shop, the furthest thing from my mind would be whether my homeowners insurance would cover the damages. Maybe you wont think about your homeowners...but do you think you might want to think twice about drawing fire towards your loved ones? I posted on that other forum, in such a scenario w/o question the first thing I would do is to hit the ground and seek cover. Then a quick self evaluation, followed by an evaluation of those I was with. If a way out was present, I have no doubt at all, I'd shephard my loved ones out of there, and let LE handle it. No, I'd not feel guilt for those still inside. Yes,I'd feel bad for them. Guilt though? Not at all. (Remember that "monkeysphere" post of awhile back?) Now..lets assume I hold a CHL. (I dont, but the games meaningless w/o one here.) Same scenario, but I draw and return fire immediately. Who knows, maybe I get lucky and one of the, lets say three, shots I fire drops the bad guy. The other 2? One buries itself harmlessly in a wall behind where the bad guy was. The other? Ricochets off the concrete post he was half hiding behind, and hits some youg kid in the face. Doesnt kill him, but leaves him blind in one eye and slightly disfigured from the scar. Anybody care to wager that such a persons family wouldnt sue me for all I was worth, would ever be worth and would ever have? Now, what did I just do to my families financial security. | ||||||
| 21 | Pancho Villa ID: 495272016 Fri, Dec 07, 2007, 18:14 |
I know there were lots of people glad that CHL holder Kenneth Hammond was having dinner at Trolley Square in SLC last February. But Hammond is a police officer, fully trained not only in the use of firearms, but also in the nuances of public safety. | ||||||
| 22 | biliruben ID: 5610442715 Fri, Dec 07, 2007, 18:23 |
This dude sounds like he would have loved to have been joined in a gun battle. Go out in a blaze of glory, baby. Sure, if someone's shooting at me and mine, I would love to be armed. However the odds are so astronomically low that I would: 1) ever be involved in a random gun battle (assuming current laws and locale), and at the same time 2) have chosen to strap on my hip my .357 for a trip to the shopping mall, that such arguments in favor of guns completely miss their mark with me. And I'm susceptible. My family likes their firearms, that's for sure. But we have certainly contributed more guns to the bad side, through losing them to theft (at least 2 robberies losing 8 weapons), then we have hindered any violent crime with them. We have never stopped any crime, though my grand-dad was sorely tempted to pop some stupid kids he got in his sights taking pot-shots at his flower pots from the mountain. I'm glad he didn't. If fact, I have a relative who was hung for killing dozens of innocent people, back during reconstruction. I won't even go into the all the myriad stupid things I've done with guns. We like 'em, but we aren't the poster-family for the 2nd amendment. | ||||||
| 23 | walk ID: 2530286 Fri, Dec 07, 2007, 18:34 |
Wow, #22, bili, some post! Quite juicy. You had a serial killing relative. Like Dexter! MBJ, I feel what SZ said. I mean, of course, if I'm in that situation, I want immediate help, but I also might get shot in the head by the scores of rambos trying to be heroes, or tripping over their toes in fright while their firearms discharge. I also wonder how many times I might get popped in other more random arguments folks have who choose to use their weapons to settle. | ||||||
| 24 | biliruben ID: 5610442715 Fri, Dec 07, 2007, 18:54 |
He even had his own TV show back in th 50s, I am told. The Texan. Wild Bill Longley.  Racist dude. Shot a lot of folks in the back. | ||||||
| 25 | Tree ID: 42115715 Fri, Dec 07, 2007, 22:10 |
I guraantee you that the people in that mall would have been grateful if some citizen other than the murdering fogger had a gun and had used it. i guess i disagree. one crazy guy with a gun is bad enough. a half-dozen, with bullets whipping around every which way, is even more insane. the odds of more people dying is increased because there are more shots being fired. the ordinary citizen can't even drive a car half the time without being pissed off that someone changed lanes in front of them. i sure as heck don't trust that same ordinary citizen to use common sense with a gun in his or her hand... | ||||||
| 26 | Myboyjack ID: 8216923 Mon, Dec 10, 2007, 21:14 |
I guess no one is going argue that the "volunteer security guard carrying her own gun" ie, an armed layperson, who saved, perhaps 100 lives at a church in Colorado yesterday made the situation more dangerous for the people whose lives she saved. Right? | ||||||
| 27 | Tree ID: 5211181021 Mon, Dec 10, 2007, 22:23 |
she was not a random person hanging out in a mall, who pulled out a piece. as you pointed out - and apparently, in a somewhat sarcastic manner - she was a volunteer security guard. this wasn't a case of a half-dozen random people randomly firing - this was someone in a position of a security guard - volunteer or not. | ||||||
| 28 | Myboyjack ID: 8216923 Mon, Dec 10, 2007, 22:43 |
tree- she was pretty random. She had volunteered that very morning to carry her gun due to the other shooting. It's not like she was normally there with her weapon. She "happened" to be there and volunteered to carry her gun. Her license to carry a gun had nothing to do with her volunteer work that morning. She did have some police training back in the early 90s. The fact is she was a citizen with a CWL who hapened to be in church that morning and because she had a gun a bunch of people are alive today. Good thing some of you guys weren't there; from your comments here, y'all would have probaly tried to stop her and just wait for law enforecment. There are so many other examples of citizens with guns stopping mass killings it's just strange that this one pops up days after this thread started. Google Appalacian School of Law shooting, eg. | ||||||
| 29 | Astade ID: 5935164 Mon, Dec 10, 2007, 23:25 |
Re #28 Myboyjack, both people that helped neutralize the Appalachian Law student were police officers that were students at the school. | ||||||
| 30 | Tree ID: 5211181021 Tue, Dec 11, 2007, 00:01 |
There are so many other examples of citizens with guns fixed that for ya. in two straight posts, you've dismissed her background. you act like she is someone who got a permit, without much training beyond that. in fact, it couldn't be much further from the truth... The security plan at New Life Church may seem extraordinary. The church's volunteer security force is stocked with people with military or law enforcement experience, they carry radios and weapons, and there are evacuation plan calls for hustling worshippers into "secure zones" in the case of emergencies. this was not Joe Smith in the mall, emptying his gun in the general direction of some shooter who wanders in hell bent on mayhem and murder. this was a location with trained personal and a plan for situations just like this. don't make it into some sort of rallying cry for ordinary people to be able to carry concealed weapons, because that's simply not what this was. | ||||||
| 31 | Seattle Zen ID: 529121611 Tue, Dec 11, 2007, 00:09 |
Good thing some of you guys weren't there; from your comments here, y'all would have probably tried to stop her and just wait for law enforcement. You're right, I would have shot her. | ||||||
| 32 | Myboyjack ID: 8216923 Tue, Dec 11, 2007, 07:11 |
tree - the only reason she was armed was because she had gone, as an ordinary citizen, and got a CWL. It had absolutely nothing to do with her law enforcement training from 15 freakin' years ago. Am I to understand that you guys are now supportive of anyone who may have done a couple of years in the army or been a trainee for the Mayberry PD for a month to have the right to ever after carry a concealed weapon? Doubt it. Is it that hard to admit that it was damn good thing that a law abiding citizen used he right to carry a gun that morning; a right you guys have been decrying as a bad thing throughout this post. You guys keep worrying about citizens wildly blamming away at each other in response to this type of situation; do you have any example that will even approach cancelling out the saving of human life from just this one incident? | ||||||
| 33 | Myboyjack ID: 8216923 Tue, Dec 11, 2007, 07:15 |
 on the other hand, I'm not sure this chick even needed a gun. I think her eyeballs would shoot frakin laser beams. | ||||||
| 34 | walk ID: 7952415 Tue, Dec 11, 2007, 10:01 |
MBJ, I think it's a risk assessment thing. I trust trained folks whose job it is to protect and provide security (then again, when I think of blackwater...but that's another thread). I don't trust a potential random group of civilians, with varying degrees of training, readiness, dispositions, shooting skills, etc., in a chaotic situation. I have not done the research on the incidence of civilian intervention gone awry in massacre situations. I imagine the research would apply to any armed civilian intervention in the midst of a violent crime (burglary, armed robbery, etc.). I think there are many documented cases of folks defending themselves or others successfully and folks making the situation worse. As a betting guy, I am thinking there's more "worse" than "better" outcomes. Part of this will be based on what exceeds the bar for media reporting (I would think the successful civilian heroics tend to get more attention than the failed civilian attempts at heroics). We cannot arbitrarily provide CHLs for only massacre situations. So, folks are going to have their CHLs for any/all situations, and potentially use them during the course of massacres (which occur very infrequently) and potentially disputes (which occur frequently). I am positing that we need to have fewer guns period, and that would include CHLs in the event of an armed mass killing spree. Of course, if I were in the middle of such a spree, I would like to have a weapon, and have my fellow folks have weapons, but it's at a risk of those same folks having weapons and using good judgment in every other situation (e.g. not using the gun EVER unless truly in danger of severe bodily harm). I don't trust that good judgment. To me, what's more important are that NO ONE have guns so that the mass killings are less likely to occur with guns. I guess folks would have to resort to using hunting rifles or shotguns. It seems there are so many guns in our country, the only remedy to prevent gun-related disputes and sprees is to arm more folks. That seems crazy to me. | ||||||
| 35 | Pancho Villa ID: 495272016 Tue, Dec 11, 2007, 10:30 |
I'd rather see the type of training and education most states require for a CHL as mandatory for anyone who feels the need to own lethal weapons. We don't allow people licenses to drive cars without first making sure they're educated and properly trained, but since cars weren't around when the Bill of Rights was written, there's no National Automobile Association around to protest any law that might restrict someone from driving as being unconstitutional. | ||||||
| 36 | sarge33rd ID: 99331714 Tue, Dec 11, 2007, 11:03 |
To a degree MBJ, you're right. I'd prefer, that holders of CHLs, be required to go through some realistic degree of "Tactical Response" training. I'd prefer, that they be rquired to demonstrate certain minimum levels of proficiency. I'd prefer, that a demonstrated need for the CHL exist, vs their own paranoia. (Something disquieting IMHO, about a paranoid individual carrying a gun. Call me crazy, but that worries me a little bit.) Never did see an answer to my query btw. What DOES happen to a CHL holder, who in response to an armed maniac, returns fire and injurs/kills an innocent? Do you REALLY expect that victims family to NOT file suit?????????? (Criminal charges I expect would be somewhat discretionary on the part of the local DA. Sad part? I think if that DA is impending a re-election bid...charges would be filed.) | ||||||
| 37 | Tree ID: 3533298 Tue, Dec 11, 2007, 15:14 |
tree - the only reason she was armed was because she had gone, as an ordinary citizen, and got a CWL. It had absolutely nothing to do with her law enforcement training from 15 freakin' years ago. Am I to understand that you guys are now supportive of anyone who may have done a couple of years in the army or been a trainee for the Mayberry PD for a month to have the right to ever after carry a concealed weapon? again, you're leaving out the bigger picture. the fact she was trained, and the fact that the church HAD A PLAN FOR THIS SITUATION, play a big role. i am much more comfortable with someone with police or military training - even someone who got herself fired from the PD - firing a gun at an assailant, then someone who doesn't have that training. yes, she got the gun as a private citizen. but she got the training as a cop. | ||||||
| 38 | sarge33rd ID: 99331714 Tue, Dec 11, 2007, 15:20 |
Numerous posters on the froum referenced above, are striving to hold this case up as a shining example of "proof". They however, are ignoring (probably because it doesnt suit their purpose), the glaring differences here: 1) The responant, was trained. 2) The respondant, was ot there solely as a member of the "general public". She was there, AS a Security Force member. 3) SHE specifically, had helped layout the plans for the Security Force. IOW, this is not a case of a random CHL holder responding to a violent situation. This case, is one where a Security Team member who happens to hold a CHL, responded as trained and according to their preconceived security plan, to an armed threat. Not at all the same scenbario, as comparing her to a husband who is Christmas shopping with his wife at the mall. This woman had a plan, that man, is busily lamenting the fact that he is even there. | ||||||
| 39 | Seattle Zen ID: 49112418 Tue, Dec 11, 2007, 18:07 |
You do have to admit, Sarge, that this story coming out just days after your excellent argument just goes to show that you are snakebit! Please don't go to the Football Forum and argue that the Vikings have put it all together and will win the NFC Championship, please, because you just KNOW that some crazy CFL holder will accidentally shoot Adrian Peterson in the knee. | ||||||
| 40 | sarge33rd ID: 99331714 Tue, Dec 11, 2007, 18:09 | Only if AP is on his way to church and stops at the mall for a quick bit of Christmas shopping. Else, he's safe. | ||||||
| 41 | Pancho Villa ID: 495272016 Tue, Dec 11, 2007, 18:54 |
Turns out she may not have been such a good shot after all. An autopsy determined that Murray killed himself with a bullet to the head after he was brought down by gunfire from a volunteer security guard at the church, authorities said link | ||||||
| 42 | weykool ID: 2842717 Tue, Dec 11, 2007, 19:21 |
#41 Who cares? I didnt read the story but the line that you quoted doesnt change anything. If she had not shot him....he would not have shot himself. Bottom line is she had a gun and her use of it saved lives. How many lives were saved?....nobody knows for sure but it would be a safe bet that people are alive today because of her. | ||||||
| 43 | sarge33rd ID: 99331714 Tue, Dec 11, 2007, 19:30 |
Nobody denied that she saved lives. Your blanket statement; If she had not...he would not.... is without proof. More than one crazed gunman, ended the entire debacle via suicide. Its pretty standard actually, from what I have read. | ||||||
| 44 | Perm Dude ID: 3311151121 Tue, Dec 11, 2007, 22:16 | Gunman killed himself | ||||||
| 45 | Baldwin ID: 4610171922 Wed, Dec 12, 2007, 03:27 |
...and the liberals decide, 'Let's make sure all thr shots are aimed at the crowd.' Make it official. You can call it the 'murder cleanup squad full employment act.' Thing of the past...yes they are. | ||||||
| 46 | sarge33rd ID: 99331714 Wed, Dec 12, 2007, 10:04 |
B....you really do test ones patience dont you? The number of people who can and DO hit, what they are aiming at, with a handgun, at ranges exceeding 15 to 20 feet....are relatively few. Now, add stress, fear and serious doses of adrenaline into the dynamic, put maybe a few hundred panicing people into the mix; and you have a recipe for disaster. Are you truly unable to cognitively process such data rationally? | ||||||
| 47 | Mattinglyinthehall Leader ID: 01629107 Wed, Dec 12, 2007, 12:15 |
...and the liberals decide, 'Let's make sure all thr shots are aimed at the crowd.' You'll have to show me where liberals made the argument that there should never be armed security guards in public places. And MBJ's characterizatioon of the hero in that church isn't quite accurate. the only reason she was armed was because she had gone, as an ordinary citizen, and got a CWL. It had absolutely nothing to do with her law enforcement training from 15 freakin' years ago. She is a former Minneapolis police officer. Sgt. Jess Garcia III, the public-information officer for the Minneapolis Police Department, said Assam left his police department in the late 1990s. He said during her time there she worked in North Minneapolis, the busiest crime area of the city, as well as in downtown Minneapolis. she was pretty random. She had volunteered that very morning to carry her gun due to the other shooting. It's not like she was normally there with her weapon. She "happened" to be there and volunteered to carry her gun. Actually, she is part of a volunteer security team the church has had for years. She attends one of the morning services and then volunteers as a guard during another service. (church Pastor Brady) Boyd said Assam was the one who suggested the church beef up its security Sunday following the Arvada shooting, which it did. We don't know whether the shooting occurred during her regular security shift or at another service and we don't know whether she carries her gun to services in which she isn't on duty. Presumably, if she wasn't there the gunman would have been taken down by another member of the security team. Assam was one of about a dozen volunteer security guards at the church, half of whom are armed, Boyd said. The guards are licensed, trained and screened, and are church members, not "mercenaries," he said. It sounds to me like her experience as a cop had very much to do with why she was armed there. | ||||||
| 48 | walk ID: 7952415 Wed, Dec 12, 2007, 12:32 |
Just finished reading "The Zombie Survival Guide." A must read if you truly want to be prepared and outlive our greatest threat. Max Brooks repeatedly makes the claim how inaccurate and unreliable even trained shooters are in panic situations, either against zombies or in "regular" violent encounters. Ultimately, sarge is one of our resident soldiers. I'll take his account of what the results would likely be of a person with a handgun in a totally unexpected and chaotic crime scene. | ||||||
| 49 | sarge33rd ID: 99331714 Wed, Dec 12, 2007, 13:26 |
Thx walk for the vote of confidence, but the truth is really quite simple...there is no way of judging precisely how any given individual will react, unless/until that individual is faced with that particular scenario. What I've tried to do above and throughout this discussion; is take my experiences and observations, then tie them together with logic. IF trained Law Enforcement Officers, can be reasonably expected to miss with 70+% of their shots at ranges from 5-20 ft; and if these same officers can hit 95+% at the range, with ranges of 20-50 feet; then it simply defies logicx to conclude that an untrained armed respondent to the scenario...could/would achieve higher "hit rates". Is it possible? Of course it is. That isnt the question however. The question is: Is it reasonable to expect such an outcome? Clearly, I think that it is not. | ||||||
| 50 | steve houpt ID: 451161019 Fri, Dec 14, 2007, 21:52 |
I think the argument [not even sure if I agree - I don't own a gun, never have, no desire - figure if someone steals my car, one less gun in the hands of a crook, or I'd shoot myself trying to protect myself - but when in New Orleans I have thought about having one there - feel fairly safe here at the beach - and getting absent minding in my old age, but ...... I think if properly trained, states should be able to authorize CHL and you should be able to carry one - just concerned like any 'govt' program - how well it is run]. Back to the argument - did he go to the mall because he knew it was a gun free zone and all those law abiding CHL's left their handguns in the car [how many people actually have CHL's in Omaha?]. Even if they could carry them, how many are we talking about? Nebraska Concealed Handgun Application Process At least Nebraska has a process [looks fairly good - but it is the govt] and required training. Must apply in person with State Police, etc. And renewing is just like the initial application [good for 5 years]. Restrictions in Nebraska: (1) Pursuant to Section 69-2441, a holder of a permit to carry a concealed handgun may carry a concealed handgun anywhere in Nebraska except: A police, sheriff, or Nebraska State Patrol station or office; A detention facility, prison, or jail; A courtroom or building which contains a courtroom; A polling place during a bona fide election; A meeting of the governing body of a county, public school district, municipality, or other political subdivision; A meeting of the Legislature or a committee of the Legislature; A financial institution, except that a financial institution may authorize its security personnel to carry concealed handguns on duty; A professional, semiprofessional, or collegiate athletic event; A school, school grounds, a school-owned vehicle, or a school-sponsored activity or athletic event; A place of worship; An emergency room or trauma center; A political rally or fundraiser; An establishment having a license issued under the Nebraska Liquor Control Act that derives over one-half of its total income from the sale of alcoholic liquor; A place where the possession or carrying of a firearm is prohibited by state or federal law; A place or premises where the person(s), entity, entities or employer in control has prohibited permit holders from carrying concealed handguns; or Any other place or premises where handguns are prohibited by law, rule or regulation. (2) If a person, entity or employer in control of property prohibits the carrying of concealed weapons on the property, a permit holder does not violate section 69-2441 (effective January 1, 2007) unless the person(s), entity, entities or employer in control of the property has posted a conspicuous notice or has made a request that the permit holder remove the concealed handgun from the place or premises. Id. However, a permit holder may carry a concealed handgun that is not removed from a vehicle onto property even if the person(s), entity, or employer in control has prohibited carrying concealed weapons. Id. An employer may prohibit permit holders from carrying concealed weapons in vehicles owned by the employer. Id. [the mall] (3) A permitholder shall not carry a concealed handgun while he or she is consuming alcohol or while the permitholder has remaining in his or her blood, urine, or breath any previously consumed alcohol or any controlled substance as defined in section 28-401. A permitholder does not violate this subsection if the controlled substance in his or her blood, urine, or breath was lawfully obtained and was taken in therapeutically prescribed amounts. Nebraska Revised Statutes [SEC 69-2441] - restrictions ======== You aleady have people with Concealed Handgun Permits, just have to leave them in the parking lot at this mall [mall was a gun free zone from what I understand]. And that's fine, it's the malls right under Nebraska law. I'm with sarge33rd, blaming Pelosi or democrats is as nutty as the dems who want no guns, no way, no where. No gun restrictions limited people from carrying, other than the private property owner [mall] saying no IAW with Nebraska Law. Does that require the mall to have "proper security" since they have announced to the world [and the nuts], it's gun free. Define proper? | ||||||
| 51 | Tree, in LA ID: 2311401512 Sat, Dec 15, 2007, 13:47 | off topic, but good to see Steve posting again. we may have disagreed on every possible thing ever, but it's good to see some intelligent posting from the conservative end of the spectrum on this boards again... | ||||||
| 52 | Myboyjack ID: 8216923 Wed, Jan 16, 2008, 07:14 |
Yet another example of how an armed citizenry produces positive results.... Police say a man accidentally shot himself in the groin as he was robbing a convenience store. A clerk told police a man carrying a semiautomatic handgun entered the Village Pantry Tuesday morning demanding cash and a pack of cigarettes. The clerk put the cash in a bag and as she turned to get the cigarettes, she heard the gun discharge. Police say surveillance video shows the man shooting himself as he placed the gun in the waistband of his pants. The clerk wasn't injured. A short time later, police found Derrick Kosch, 25, at a home with a gunshot wound to his right testicle and lower left leg. He was expected to have surgery at a hospital. Dude blew his balls off. | ||||||
| 53 | Tree ID: 3533298 Wed, Jan 16, 2008, 08:48 |
that's nuts! thank you, thank you, i'll be here all week! | ||||||
| 54 | sarge33rd ID: 99331714 Wed, Jan 16, 2008, 11:14 | Only January, and already the 2008 Darwin Award has been claimed! roflmfao | ||||||
| 55 | Myboyjack ID: 8216923 Thu, May 29, 2008, 22:16 |
Secondly, the fewer guns the better, so yes, I'd rather that he be the only shooter than having John Q. Public join in on the shooting. Once again, a lot of people have their lives because you guys aren't in charge... John Q. CHP saves lives in Nevada bar. There were approximately 300 patrons in and around the bar. No shots were fired by law enforcement during the incident. | ||||||
| 56 | Razor ID: 504132820 Thu, May 29, 2008, 23:29 | You going to dig one of those stories up for every concealed weapon that has been used in a murder, mbj? Has anyone denied that concealed weapons are capable of deterring crime? I have not seen it. The obvious question is allowing concealed weapons prevents more crime than it enables. The question is far more obvious than its answer. | ||||||
| 57 | Tree ID: 9452917 Thu, May 29, 2008, 23:42 |
Five people shot in Queens on Saturday... Teenager shot and killed in the Bronx later that night... Two teens shot on Staten Island on Wednesday... yep. we definitely need more guns. | ||||||
| If you believe a recent post violates the policy on Civility and Respect, you may report the abuse via email to moderators@rotoguru1.com | ||||||||
| ||||||||
Post a reply to this message: (But first, how about checking out this sponsor?) | ||||||||