Author Topic: Defense Against Mass Shooters (Read 2269 times)

FrodeMk3 · « **Reply #60 on:** April 17, 2007, 03:54:39 AM »

One thing...If the guy was a chinese national, He more than likely could'nt have legally owned the guns he had(Assuming Virginia's laws are like Cali's...)

If he had been a legal gunowner, **** woulda really hit the fan.

But, I'm kinda thinking he isn't(the way gun laws are.)

Vulcan · « **Reply #61 on:** April 17, 2007, 04:13:53 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Warspawn
What a tradegy.

One teacher or student with a concealed weapon permit and a pistol in their belt or bag would have saved alot of lives.

Of course the story will be twisted in a completely opposite direction. Anyone want to bet that the killer had no permit or legal weapon, and that regardless of the restrictions the anti-gun nuts want to clamp down on our rights, he would have gotten the weapon?

Flipside is the pro-gun nuts will soon be coming out screaming about carried concealed... oh wait

FastFwd · « **Reply #62 on:** April 17, 2007, 08:15:57 AM »

It's odd that this particular incident, with 32 killed by the gunman, is attracting so much attention, when approximately the same number of people die by gunshot every day in the US on a "normal" day.

Reschke · « **Reply #63 on:** April 17, 2007, 08:21:01 AM »

The only defense is a good offense!

Basically don't let the liberal gun law advocates strip us of our right to keep and bear arms!

Maverick · « **Reply #64 on:** April 17, 2007, 08:25:00 AM »

Soda,

Here's your WAAAAHHHH poor me T-shirt. If you can't figure out that the Police do not have instant TV super hero like abilities to determine who is a real suspect and who is not when both match the general description then you have a serious problem with reality. Sorry you got offended by the situation but they had only so much info to go on and acted on it accordingly. Of course I'm sure you'd rather they just walked up to your car and accepted that one of them would likely die from the suspect getting a first shot or several off into them. They aren't paid to die just so you aren't offended.

As to the rest of the thread here. Folks are not in a fight type of mind set in their everyday lives. They lack the mindset that they could be confronted by violence of any type. Most folks simply react with fear, panic and disbelief.

The single best reaction is to not be there when the violence is going on. If you remain you provide more victims.

Second best it do the baricade and deny entrance to your area.

Last when confronted with certain death, get mad and do whatever you can to survive. That still takes a mindset that is not present in most people who are unacustomed to dealing with violence and accepting that they will be hurt in the process.

Brenjen · « **Reply #65 on:** April 17, 2007, 08:30:54 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Vulcan
Flipside is the pro-gun nuts will soon be coming out screaming about carried concealed... oh wait

Armed defenders are the only thing that would have stopped these insane murderers short, the Luby's cafeteria shooting, the Columbine killers, the amish school shooter, the VT shooter etc. There is absolutely nothing else that could do it, the police? They had two hours advance warning in this last shooting; I don't blame them for bungling anything either. Based on the information they had the shooter had fled.

Why did they arrest the oriental guy in the picture? (yes when you are detained by police you are under arrest, your freedom to leave has been "arrested")

Because he fit the description of the shooter, profiling is how police work. Would it have made sense to slap cuffs on a 90 year old white woman with a walker? Only if the shooter was reported to be an old white woman with a walker...see how that works? lol

If the professor who gave his life to allow his students to escape out the window in this latest shooting had been armed, maybe he could have killed the perp right then & there. We know what happened to him while not being armed....he was shot to death through a door. The news media never picks up the story & runs with it when one of these idiots is stopped short by an armed defender....like the shooting out in the mall a couple months ago. An armed off duty cop stopped the killing spree before he could rack up 30 or more kills. He had to stop shooting un-armed people & concentrate on his gun battle with the cop. Lives were saved by an armed defender, plain & simple.

Squire · « **Reply #66 on:** April 17, 2007, 08:32:22 AM »

The idea of everbody packing pistols is a fantasy "fix", because several things come to kind right away, #1 kids dont carry firearms, and they are often the target of these kinds of shootings. I dont think its practical to think every teacher is going to be a part time cop, with a loaded gun in the classroom. Never going to happen, thats all pie-in-the-sky-musing, and not a serious strategy.

...and no, I am not for strict gun control. I think it does little in the way of stopping violent crimes or mass killings by insane psycopaths.

That being said, I have a real problem with this idea of "lock downs" in schools. The only thing this does is fix the victims in place for the shooter. The schools (and other places) needs a "fire alarm" approach, you exit the buildings immediately, and *RUN FOR YOUR LIVES*, you dont sit in place. The "lock down" strategy imho, has never been proven to reduce any fatalities.

If a school or business gets a "shooting" alarm, the stratgey should be for everbody to get the hell out of there, right now, and exit the area. The police need a strategy of IMMDIATELY sending the 1st officers on scene to engage the gunmen, with no stopping to muse about grand plans. They MUST get in quickly and isolate the shooter. If your a traffic cop, and you are 1st there, you get your sidearm out and you get moving. Plan SWAT ops after you have the luxury of time. It does no good to have a picture perfect SWAT entry after two dozen kids are dead inside.

My 2 cents.

lazs2 · « **Reply #67 on:** April 17, 2007, 08:38:10 AM »

If you have time to barricade yourself into a classroom you have time to shoot the guy as he breaks in. Lots of lives would have been saved.

People are not stupid.. despite all the hand wringing from the gun control crowd people will get the idea and gun sales will go up.

the police and the gun control advocates can't save anyone.

lazs

Brenjen · « **Reply #68 on:** April 17, 2007, 08:40:45 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Squire
The idea of everbody packing pistols is a fantasy "fix", because several things come to kind right away, #1 kids dont carry firearms, and they are often the target of these kinds of shootings. I dont think its practical to think every teacher is going to be a part time cop, with a loaded gun in the classroom. Never going to happen, thats all pie-in-the-sky-musing, and not a serious strategy. My 2 cents.

Of course not. Kids aren't who we're referring to; no one things you should arm children...get real lol. Allowing the adults who are of a legal age to carry is not pie in the sky musing. I carry my weapon everywhere I go, including onto school grounds when I pick up my two kids from their schools. If the adults who are stable, solid citizens & employees of the school were allowed to carry weapons onto school grounds without fear of prosecution some (obviously not all) would & it only takes one aimed round to stop the killer. In my minds eye, I see my daughters at the end of the psychopaths gun & I would pray to god that someone armed was there to battle him & divert his or her attention.

I would trust a CCW teacher to be armed in the classroom with my kids & I'd feel a lot more secure knowing they were there than just one 4'11" female cop, just out of the academy who is only a few years older than the students in the school. At least they have a free, fire arms trained, security force in the CCW carriers.

indy007 · « **Reply #69 on:** April 17, 2007, 08:45:54 AM »

Rushing an armed assailant...

I just don't see that working. These are school kids, in a "gun free zone", not soldiers. I'd venture to say 99% of their exposure to violence is all on TV... and we all know TV fights have very little to do with reality.

I train in Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu (submission grappling) & Muay Thai (kick-boxing).

I still carry a pistol for a reason. There's no substitute for it... except maybe a carbine or rifle...

Hazzer · « **Reply #70 on:** April 17, 2007, 08:48:07 AM »

I think Charon has a point ,he argues that Gun crime in THE USA is rare,And I don't doubt the truth of what he says.So if Gun crime is rare,why are ppl on here arguing that they need a weapon to protect themselves,against a rare crime?

Charon · « **Reply #71 on:** April 17, 2007, 08:54:28 AM »

Quote

I think Charon has a point ,he argues that Gun crime in THE USA is rare,And I don't doubt the truth of what he says.So if Gun crime is rare,why are ppl on here arguing that they need a weapon to protect themselves,against a rare crime?

Gun crime is not overall rare, just rare outside of inner city gang neighborhoods and rare outside of thug on thug crime. In fact, outside of these areas it's entirely on par with Europe and with less violent crime in general, as far as I can tell. While it is rare, and I don't sweat leaving the door unlocked by accident overnight and get in a panic over it, IF an intruder does break in my life and that of my family are too important to leave to chance. Ultimately self defense, the ability to progtect My life, is a critical human right. Kind of an all or nothing thing.

And, if my job required me to work in such neighborhoods, or if I had to live in such neighborhoods, then firearm ownership for protection would mean something else entirely since there doesn't seem to be any real effort to address the social problems leading to inner city poverty and crime.

Charon

Squire · « **Reply #72 on:** April 17, 2007, 08:54:55 AM »

Ya, I have heard it all before.

Its fine you pack everywhere you go, good for you. I have no problem with that either.

But you are at WORK during the day, you are not standing in your kids classroom standing guard. You wouldn't be there.

...and if they have time to barricade themseslves in the classroom, they have time to run like hell out of there!

As a side issue on school security, thats another debate, and perhaps its high time to see an increase in armed security at schools.

I also have no problem with a teacher who say has a CCW with a gun in class, so I will elaborate my point:

If you were on a mass killing spree, and even if you were in a school where you knew a teacher might be armed...you are just going to know who to shoot 1st. After that, its all fish in a barrell, and you know it. So, the only sensible thing to do, is to have a policy of immediate evacuation, coupled with aggressive police response, and better school security methods, including armed guards, who hopefully would be quality people, not 5 dollar an h.r guys that would not risk themselves when called upon.

In any case the question was how to defend in the case of a mass shooting, and there are many states, and countries (other than the USA) where teachers and students cannot have CCW, so its not a serious "fix" in many places, and questionable even in places where gun laws allow CCW.

soda72 · « **Reply #73 on:** April 17, 2007, 08:56:04 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Hazzer
I think Charon has a point ,he argues that Gun crime in THE USA is rare,And I don't doubt the truth of what he says.So if Gun crime is rare,why are ppl on here arguing that they need a weapon to protect themselves,against a rare crime?

since I can die only once that would be one time to many...

If you compare with the what happened recently in Utah vs this situation, having the ability to carry a concealed firearm seems to make sense to me now....

Brenjen · « **Reply #74 on:** April 17, 2007, 08:59:20 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Hazzer
I think Charon has a point ,he argues that Gun crime in THE USA is rare,And I don't doubt the truth of what he says.So if Gun crime is rare,why are ppl on here arguing that they need a weapon to protect themselves,against a rare crime?

Because no one wants to be in that less than 1% of people murdered.

When your completely defenseless & facing imminent death, saving your own life is what the normal person is thinking about, not the fact that it's a rare occurrence that they are facing.

Disarming the populace is not the answer, the old "when guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns" statement has been proven in the large cities here in the U.S. they have the highest crime rates per capita. Not just gun crime either, it's a domino effect. Criminals like nothing better than subservient victims.