That the armed resource office has gotten little media attention is no surprise. Whether his presence changed the outcome can be argued. one thing that is not arguable is that after the fact, and probably during the ordeal, all eyes were upon the good guy with the gun to stop this potential killer. How that can be anything but positive evidence that good guys with guns are the best chance for stopping potential killers, and protecting the students is beyond me.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Another School Shooting
- Thread starter steve4102
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
I'm in the education business. The fast response or not by XY or Z has absolutely no influence on the debate for private citizen carry in schools or armed teachers.
The shooter seem to plan to kill themselves when official opposition arrives in many cases. It's part of the scenario. We have no idea how they would respond to a challenge by an armed citizen.
They have happily shot charging victims. Sometimes the charge has worked - depends on the local situation.
As I said before - the folks against guns use the argument that the police or security will protect you. They see untrained civilians with guns as a risk. They will not argue to let Joe Blow carry because an armed official person saved the day.
Also, the event happen because plain old civilians buy guns. What is the better preventive measure - have more folks buy guns? How does having a group of highly restricted and somewhat trained gun users impact the argument for any old shmoo to buy a gun?
Nope - it is not win for us in any fashion.
The shooter seem to plan to kill themselves when official opposition arrives in many cases. It's part of the scenario. We have no idea how they would respond to a challenge by an armed citizen.
They have happily shot charging victims. Sometimes the charge has worked - depends on the local situation.
As I said before - the folks against guns use the argument that the police or security will protect you. They see untrained civilians with guns as a risk. They will not argue to let Joe Blow carry because an armed official person saved the day.
Also, the event happen because plain old civilians buy guns. What is the better preventive measure - have more folks buy guns? How does having a group of highly restricted and somewhat trained gun users impact the argument for any old shmoo to buy a gun?
Nope - it is not win for us in any fashion.
Brian Pfleuger
Moderator Emeritus
Glenn E. Meyer said:I'm in the education business. The fast response or not by XY or Z has absolutely no influence on the debate for private citizen carry in schools or armed teachers.
The shooter seem to plan to kill themselves when official opposition arrives in many cases. It's part of the scenario. We have no idea how they would respond to a challenge by an armed citizen.
Glenn, I'm curious how we conclude that the shooters perceive or plan for any difference between "official" and unofficial armed response?
I know of only one case off the top of my head, the Clackamas Mall shooter, but he withdrew and shot himself when an armed citizen intervened.
At first blush, it would seem that our best argument is for the presence of an armed responder, of any kind.
We have another school case where a faculty member had to run off school grounds where his vehicle was legally parked "because it had a gun inside", ran back inside, confronted the shooter, all before LEOs arrived. This was a couple years ago, and got little publicity so I'm sketchy on the details, but I'm sure someone can help me fill them in.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
Brian - I was trying to say that the shooters expect to run into official opposition. Analyses say that they want to die a 'warrior's death faced with the official authorities.
Thus, when the law arrives they have fulfilled their mission and don't want to go into custody and thus shoot themselves.
Do they feel this when confronted with an armed civilian - the OR case is unclear as we really only have the citizen's word for it. Who knows - I'm always the cynic. We've seen the shooter confronted by the armed citizen twice - Tacoma and Tyler and the shooter shot them. Cho shot a charging student to pieces but killed himself when the law arrived.
The argument for an armed civilian is that you can shoot the person. I would advise (worth what you paid for it) that if you deploy a gun as an armed civilian, challenging a shooter is a BAD idea. That might be procedure for the law but not you. The Tacoma and Tyler guys paid the price. Tacoma guy didn't fire and Tyler guy foolishly approached the downed shooter.
The Pearl shooter - the vice principle retrieved a firearm (1911) and stopped the kid from fleeing. The Appalachian incident - law officers in class retrieved guns, didn't shoot and wrestled the shooter.
So I don't think we can count on suicide from being challenged by Carl Concealed-Carry.
If you are a civilian, you aren't a negotiator.
So, it's a guess but I think watching an official armed presence means more to the planned suicide than a CCW person. Clackmas might be a case where a challenge worked. Honestly, if you are close enough to challenge, you should act. Otherwise, run or hide.
Thus, when the law arrives they have fulfilled their mission and don't want to go into custody and thus shoot themselves.
Do they feel this when confronted with an armed civilian - the OR case is unclear as we really only have the citizen's word for it. Who knows - I'm always the cynic. We've seen the shooter confronted by the armed citizen twice - Tacoma and Tyler and the shooter shot them. Cho shot a charging student to pieces but killed himself when the law arrived.
The argument for an armed civilian is that you can shoot the person. I would advise (worth what you paid for it) that if you deploy a gun as an armed civilian, challenging a shooter is a BAD idea. That might be procedure for the law but not you. The Tacoma and Tyler guys paid the price. Tacoma guy didn't fire and Tyler guy foolishly approached the downed shooter.
The Pearl shooter - the vice principle retrieved a firearm (1911) and stopped the kid from fleeing. The Appalachian incident - law officers in class retrieved guns, didn't shoot and wrestled the shooter.
So I don't think we can count on suicide from being challenged by Carl Concealed-Carry.
If you are a civilian, you aren't a negotiator.
So, it's a guess but I think watching an official armed presence means more to the planned suicide than a CCW person. Clackmas might be a case where a challenge worked. Honestly, if you are close enough to challenge, you should act. Otherwise, run or hide.
Last edited:
Without being in a situation with specifics and details, I can't say how I'd react, or what I'd do, but I imagine in most cases, I would not offer a verbal challenge, as I wouldn't have a second chance vest and a helmet.
As for how some hypothetical "they" would react, we don't know. I think there's a flaw with even starting that question. As long as we're in hypotheticals, assume you're with your buddy sitting in the mall, sipping on an Orange Julius. You see a guy go by, and he prints, or uncovers through carelessness or accident. Your buddy offers you a bet on this person's occupation. Do you want to put your money on LEO, or aircraft mechanic? While most of us know in our head that other people carry, and our gut is less likely to have free reign over our imagination, I think most of us see a concealed carry'er and place, at the least, high likelihood of off-duty LEO.
As for how some hypothetical "they" would react, we don't know. I think there's a flaw with even starting that question. As long as we're in hypotheticals, assume you're with your buddy sitting in the mall, sipping on an Orange Julius. You see a guy go by, and he prints, or uncovers through carelessness or accident. Your buddy offers you a bet on this person's occupation. Do you want to put your money on LEO, or aircraft mechanic? While most of us know in our head that other people carry, and our gut is less likely to have free reign over our imagination, I think most of us see a concealed carry'er and place, at the least, high likelihood of off-duty LEO.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
Oh, I read that he was in his car and preparing to leave when the VP got to him.
That wasn't the case? - Initial reports are always confused.
That wasn't the case? - Initial reports are always confused.
As for how some hypothetical "they" would react, we don't know.
I don't know how he would react to an armed faculty member, but I can pretty reasonably speculate that his reaction to a bullet would be the same whether it came from a teach er or a uniformed officer.
I think stratgey of counting on a suicide to stop a shooter comes a little too late in most cases.
Analyses say that they want to die a 'warrior's death faced with the official authorities.
I disagree with the idea that suicide is considered a "warrior's death" in American culture. More often it is viewed as cowardice.
I disagree with the idea that suicide is considered a "warrior's death" in American culture. More often it is viewed as cowardice.
Often in the mind of the shooter they are not thinking of it as suicide by cop but as going out in a blaze of glory fighting to the end. Or at least they are hoping that will happen before they are cornered and have to turn the gun on themselves.
Brian Pfleuger
Moderator Emeritus
TimSr said:I disagree with the idea that suicide is considered a "warrior's death" in American culture. More often it is viewed as cowardice.
We aren't talking about "America", we're talking about people that think it's right/heroic/justice to shoot up buildings full of innocent people. The prevailing thoughts of "ordinary" people hardly apply.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
Thanks, Chazz, Brian.
The analysis is their thoughts - not what we call them. Calling them cowards might make us feel good but it's irrelevant to their minds.
They are trying to make a point and their death is an assumed part of this show. The reaction from the public and media to previous shooting reinforces their plan. It would be better to minimize the personal coverage of the shooters and their victims.
Every crying mom, coach, student friend - gives a portrayal of pain. That is what the shooter wants to think will happen after their action. It is called vicarious reinforcement. It actually lights up pleasure centers in the brain.
Calling them cowards but showing the wailing isn't going to influence behavior.
The analysis is their thoughts - not what we call them. Calling them cowards might make us feel good but it's irrelevant to their minds.
They are trying to make a point and their death is an assumed part of this show. The reaction from the public and media to previous shooting reinforces their plan. It would be better to minimize the personal coverage of the shooters and their victims.
Every crying mom, coach, student friend - gives a portrayal of pain. That is what the shooter wants to think will happen after their action. It is called vicarious reinforcement. It actually lights up pleasure centers in the brain.
Calling them cowards but showing the wailing isn't going to influence behavior.
Double Naught Spy
New member
That the armed resource office has gotten little media attention is no surprise. Whether his presence changed the outcome can be argued. one thing that is not arguable is that after the fact, and probably during the ordeal, all eyes were upon the good guy with the gun to stop this potential killer. How that can be anything but positive evidence that good guys with guns are the best chance for stopping potential killers, and protecting the students is beyond me.
It isn't good evidence because there is no evidence that a good guy with a gun stopped the shooter. He we just present and helpful in the crisis, but nothing reported thusfar indicates that he did anything to actually stop the shooter. If you are going to take the perspective of "good guys with guns," the public will dutiful note that the SRO wasn't Carl Concealed Carrier, but a sworn LEO who was employed for the sole purpose at that time to protect the school, hence our best chance for stopping such folks would be by LAW ENFORCEMENT.
Off the top of my head, that sounds like the Appalachian Law School shooting.
The problem with using the Appalachian Law School incident here is three-fold. First of all, Odighizuwa appeared to be in flight, leaving the scene, and was not actively engaging targets. Second, this may have been because he was out of ammunition. For all practical purposes, he was there to commit murder, did so, and was in flight. Third, the off duty officers who were students on campus who retrieved weapons from their cars were reportedly late in arriving to the proverbial party. An UNARMED student named Ted Besen (whose story was backed by witnesses) put down Odighizuwa before the armed off duty officers arrived. So there is definitely some question as to who stopped Odighizuwa.
http://murderpedia.org/male.O/o/odighizuwa-peter.htm
Sick as it sounds, I have heard discussion that some of these mass shooters consider it a "game". They count points for each kill, and if killed by the cops, they "lose" their points. If they kill themselves, they "keep" their points...
Amazing...
also, that while malls are good for targets, schools are better, because all your targets are locked in!
Such is the world today, it seems.
They kill themselves, in what I think is not cowardice, but the final act of defiance to authority. As they see it.
Today, we are all scientific and rational, and we call it mental illness. In olden times it was called demonic possession. In some ways, I think that still applies...
What ever personal demon(s) drive the mass shooters, it seems that while they are strong enough to make them kill (including themselves, often enough) its not strong enough to make them fight.
We see it time and time again, when the police arrive, or when someone confronts one of these shooters, they give up, or kill themselves.
Have there been any cases of one of these crazies fighting it out until killed or captured? Seriously I can't think of any in recent decades, anyway...
Amazing...
also, that while malls are good for targets, schools are better, because all your targets are locked in!
Such is the world today, it seems.
They kill themselves, in what I think is not cowardice, but the final act of defiance to authority. As they see it.
Today, we are all scientific and rational, and we call it mental illness. In olden times it was called demonic possession. In some ways, I think that still applies...
What ever personal demon(s) drive the mass shooters, it seems that while they are strong enough to make them kill (including themselves, often enough) its not strong enough to make them fight.
We see it time and time again, when the police arrive, or when someone confronts one of these shooters, they give up, or kill themselves.
Have there been any cases of one of these crazies fighting it out until killed or captured? Seriously I can't think of any in recent decades, anyway...
Unfortunately, that seems to have some truth. Lanza studied prior school shootings, with a close eye on Columbine. Cho Seung-Hui referred to Harris and Kliebold as "martyrs."Sick as it sounds, I have heard discussion that some of these mass shooters consider it a "game".
There's definitely a copycat syndrome at work here, which is why I'm glad the media didn't splash Lanza's picture and name all over the place.
Double Naught Spy
New member
Luke was the scapegoat for the group… (as he was the shooter) but, not the mastermind.
But, No he was not fleeing…He was calm, reloading the 30-30 and not paying attention..
You keep saying he wasn't fleeing and that he was reloading. Do you have any citations for this. What I find is that he was indeed fleeing when Myrick stopped him.
http://www.davekopel.com/2a/othwr/principal&gun.htmBut Myrick foiled that plan. He saw the killer fleeing the campus and positioned himself to point a gun at the windshield. Woodham, seeing the gun pointed at his head, crashed the car. Myrick approached the killer and confronted him. "Here was this monster killing kids in my school, and the minute I put a gun to his head he was a kid again," Myrick said.
http://murderpedia.org/male.W/w/woodham-luke.htmHe went on to wound seven others before leaving, intending to drive off campus and conduct another shooting at the nearby Pearl Junior High School. However, assistant principal Joel Myrick had retrieved a .45 pistol from the glove compartment of his truck and subdued Woodham inside his mother's car.
With that said, Kip Kinkel was reloading with wounded Jacob Ryker and other students tackled him. Jared Loughner was taken down during a reload. Robert Bonelli was tackled after running out of ammo. Brendan O'Rourke had a jam he was trying to clear after he opened fire on the Kelly Elementary playground when a construction worker hit him with a truck and others tackled him. Amy Bishop was rushed by faculty when her gun either ran empty or malfunctioned.
So I can find where ammunition and reloading issues were problems in several other such shootings, but not at Pearl High School. Maybe you have a better source?
Aguila Blanca
Staff
And four days AFTER the one-year anniversary of Sandy Hook, the media are still yapping about the shooting and about the shooter, and agonizing over the fact that the authorities still don't know what his motive was.Glenn E. Meyer said:Every crying mom, coach, student friend - gives a portrayal of pain. That is what the shooter wants to think will happen after their action. It is called vicarious reinforcement. It actually lights up pleasure centers in the brain.
Who cares? His motive was his motive, and likely won't fit any other prospective shooter's mindset anyway.
Meanwhile, people in Connecticut are scrambling to register their "assault weapons" and their evil assault high capacity ammunition feeding devices ... and this kid goes out and shoots up a school with a shotgun, our Vice President's weapon of choice and a weapon conspicuously NOT (as yet) on the gun banners' radar. Worse, the kid had the gun in plain sight, yet he was able to just walk into a school in the middle of the school day.
We obviously either learned nothing from Sandy Hook, or what we "learned" weren't the right lessons.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.