Concealed Handguns vs Orlando terrorism last night
- Thread starter TXAZ
- Start date
THAT would still be a better outcome then allowing the gunman to shoot scores of people at will.
Some folks just dont understand that gunfights are RISKY. Bullets have no ability to discriminate. They go both directions and you MIGHT end up shot in this event.
So 5 people killed in a crossfire OR 50 killed by an unopposed gunman. The math is simple to me. YMMV
Better implies a lot of things. In the case of the Orlando shooting it is fairly simple to say that a quick reaction, early on, that resulted in only a handful of people killed as collateral damage would have been a better response. However it is weighted with hindsight and the knowledge of exactly how many lives the shooter was able to take.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
Yes, folks we do delete drive-bys. For those who are new - check the faq.
You need to explain a link. Why because a link could be:
1. Spam
2. -CENSORED--CENSORED--CENSORED--CENSORED-
3. Nazis or other unacceptable crap.
The mods don't get paid enough to check each link. We expect you to inform us.
Of course, if you lie about it - you get banned.
You need to explain a link. Why because a link could be:
1. Spam
2. -CENSORED--CENSORED--CENSORED--CENSORED-
3. Nazis or other unacceptable crap.
The mods don't get paid enough to check each link. We expect you to inform us.
Of course, if you lie about it - you get banned.
Double Naught Spy
New member
So the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few Star Trek logic. It sounds so good, but fratricide is illegal.
Interesting comparison, but overly superficial, though you mean to imply that the armed people of the police station are able to suppress the threat before very many people are harmed. Sounds logical. HOWEVER, most people don't get very far into police stations when they do start shooting, generally entry/lobby areas only that do not have many people. Most such attacks don't even take place inside of police stations. The shooters attack the stations from the outside, from areas that are not gun-free zones. Imagine that.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...b97f36-e9e6-11e5-b0fd-073d5930a7b7_story.html And in this case, the killed officer was killed by friendly fire. http://www.policemag.com/channel/pa...-friendly-fire-was-mistaken-for-attacker.aspx
http://www.policemag.com/list/tag/station-attacks.aspx
http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/13/us/dallas-police-headquarters-shooting/
http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Shots-Fired-Outside-McKinney-Police-Station-100886034.html
Then there is the Detroit police station shooting. Sure enough, only 4 officers were shot in this mass shooting. The gunman was killed. Only 4 sounds really good, but the gunman did shoot most of the officers involved in the fight.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P21rjGAuhBo Take a good look at the lack of control of some of the trained police officers trying to shoot back at the suspect. Imagine that in Pulse. See about 40-50 seconds in the video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MuuEGuJA7kM
So it isn't so easy to just point to police station shootings and intimate that they turn out so well because they are places where people are armed. Most of the shooting don't happen inside of police stations. Usually, there are not very many people present when the shootings start. And when you read through the articles, you will find that in many instances, it is just suicide by cop, not really any sort of serious attempt at a mass shooting.
00X noted:
I agree with the suicide by cop. But my basic point was that there are people in the police that have the means to protect themselves, vs. a gun-free zone. Gun-free zone shooting = really bad news day
Some-guns in the zone shooting = bad but not as bad news day
And yes fratricide might be illegal, but I'd take my chances with a jury after the fact on that one, vs. being a likely statistic in the ground.
I agree with the suicide by cop. But my basic point was that there are people in the police that have the means to protect themselves, vs. a gun-free zone. Gun-free zone shooting = really bad news day
Some-guns in the zone shooting = bad but not as bad news day
And yes fratricide might be illegal, but I'd take my chances with a jury after the fact on that one, vs. being a likely statistic in the ground.
Brother,
The needs of the many DO outweigh the needs of the few...LIFEBOAT LOGIC.
Sorry but thats the hard cruel facts of it. I will accecpt reducing the amount of casualties and stop the shooter SOONER. That is the basis for current active shooter mitigation. A class I teach.
The more stress we can out the attacker under (by means of return fire) the lower the body count is going to be as an avg.
THAT is logical...
The needs of the many DO outweigh the needs of the few...LIFEBOAT LOGIC.
Sorry but thats the hard cruel facts of it. I will accecpt reducing the amount of casualties and stop the shooter SOONER. That is the basis for current active shooter mitigation. A class I teach.
The more stress we can out the attacker under (by means of return fire) the lower the body count is going to be as an avg.
THAT is logical...
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
FYI, for people who study the psychology of moral decision making, they look at attitudes that seem to be fast, emotional and automatic.
One is that you don't take an innocent life, even to save more innocents.
It's a variant of the trolley car problem.
Thus, we have a natural aversion to such. Would you pick up a little kid to be a human shield so you could close with the active shooter? It might work. Some gun 'experts' say: Always cheat.
But would you - even if saved more lives? Of course, not.
One is that you don't take an innocent life, even to save more innocents.
It's a variant of the trolley car problem.
Thus, we have a natural aversion to such. Would you pick up a little kid to be a human shield so you could close with the active shooter? It might work. Some gun 'experts' say: Always cheat.
But would you - even if saved more lives? Of course, not.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
Not the point, no offense.
The problem in many self-defense discussions is that folks fear the taking of an innocent life. I'm pointing out that this is an automatic and emotional quick response.
The idea of one person shooting is bad enough. The idea of others shooting and hitting innocents evoke the emotional and not rational calculation.
I don't get why killing an innocent tumor is relevant?
I have had this discussion quite a few times and it sometimes dovetails into the training argument. I've had folks say to me that they thought they would be ok with me carrying a firearm in a NPE work environment as they knew I did the due diligence to have some knowledge of how the boom boom works. However, they were fearful of the gun enthusiast who talked the talked but had little skill. The latter did not get the moral benefit of trying to be competent.
Old debate about training, we've done that quite a bit.
The problem in many self-defense discussions is that folks fear the taking of an innocent life. I'm pointing out that this is an automatic and emotional quick response.
The idea of one person shooting is bad enough. The idea of others shooting and hitting innocents evoke the emotional and not rational calculation.
I don't get why killing an innocent tumor is relevant?
I have had this discussion quite a few times and it sometimes dovetails into the training argument. I've had folks say to me that they thought they would be ok with me carrying a firearm in a NPE work environment as they knew I did the due diligence to have some knowledge of how the boom boom works. However, they were fearful of the gun enthusiast who talked the talked but had little skill. The latter did not get the moral benefit of trying to be competent.
Old debate about training, we've done that quite a bit.
Glenn... No offense taken Sir.
My professional life has made me ponder the rational calculation, not in the abstract but as a real life problem. Would i sacrifice a teammate to save the protectee entrustred to us....yes. AND i would EXPECT my teammates to act accordingly if the tables were turned.
Lose some to save many....yes again. That is my FIRMLY held response. I train constantly to keep my skils (all of them) up to an accecptible level for the job we do. Now, i understand that im outside the norm for CCW holders. But my thought process doesnt waiver depending on who is behind the trigger.
Put the bad guy DOWN. STOP the killing. Should there be innocents injured/killed as a by product of that action... That is a HORRIBLE & TRAGIC situation. But my personal moral compass says that is LESS tragic & horrible then letting him just excute folks at will.
YMMV of course.... I will act
My professional life has made me ponder the rational calculation, not in the abstract but as a real life problem. Would i sacrifice a teammate to save the protectee entrustred to us....yes. AND i would EXPECT my teammates to act accordingly if the tables were turned.
Lose some to save many....yes again. That is my FIRMLY held response. I train constantly to keep my skils (all of them) up to an accecptible level for the job we do. Now, i understand that im outside the norm for CCW holders. But my thought process doesnt waiver depending on who is behind the trigger.
Put the bad guy DOWN. STOP the killing. Should there be innocents injured/killed as a by product of that action... That is a HORRIBLE & TRAGIC situation. But my personal moral compass says that is LESS tragic & horrible then letting him just excute folks at will.
YMMV of course.... I will act
If you look at the mass shootings from the 80s on up, you will find one of two basic things happen. People hide or flee, and the shooter does what they want to do until the police show up,
OR someone(s) actively resist, attacking the shooter. UNARMED people. Sometimes even wounded, unarmed people.
I had a lot of discussions about this in the 90s while my kids were in school. About what to do, and not do, if there appeared to be no options. Also when to follow the instructions of teachers/school policy, and when NOT TO.
Of course, there's no guarantee of success, but if you're going to be shot, anyway, what do you really have to lose???
OR someone(s) actively resist, attacking the shooter. UNARMED people. Sometimes even wounded, unarmed people.
I had a lot of discussions about this in the 90s while my kids were in school. About what to do, and not do, if there appeared to be no options. Also when to follow the instructions of teachers/school policy, and when NOT TO.
Of course, there's no guarantee of success, but if you're going to be shot, anyway, what do you really have to lose???
Double Naught Spy
New member
And this is where it gets scary as people condone fratricide as a viable part of self defense. Such notions really take the shine off of the notion of being responsible gun carriers.
We can argue the morality all day. Discussing shooting into a crowd where there is real risk of hitting innocents for the purpose of saving others is completely relevant here, call it what you will. As a sworn officer one has a duty to act, knowing that collateral damage is possible, for the greater good. As a civilian, I have the right and responsibility to defend myself and those in my charge. Do I have the authority, whether granted by God or the State, to kill innocents to save others?
Im not arguing the morality of anything, Im just saying the risk of hitting an innocent is not fratricide.
lets talk about the risk, if its worth it, and what we can do to mitigate it. But nobody here is saying to purposely do it for "the needs of the many" in order to stop the shooter.
lets talk about the risk, if its worth it, and what we can do to mitigate it. But nobody here is saying to purposely do it for "the needs of the many" in order to stop the shooter.
Koda94, the killing by 'friendly fire' is an accepted definition of fratricide. That it is not intended is a given. In a situation like the Orlando shooting the odds are very high that there will be casualties by friendly fire. That this happened in Orlando seems clear.
You cannot dismiss the fact that killing innocent people in the stopping of an active shooter in a crowded, chaotic environment is a very real possibility. Do you have the right to take that chance?
You cannot dismiss the fact that killing innocent people in the stopping of an active shooter in a crowded, chaotic environment is a very real possibility. Do you have the right to take that chance?
ok so I looked it up and you are correct. My bad and my apologies...
I think I was distracted with the "needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" idea that I assumed suggested purposly commiting fratricide as a tactic to stop the shooter.
In my opinion, one has that right to take the chance if ones life is in danger but morally one shouldnt exercise that right if one knows for a fact their actions could take innocent lives. The armed citizen in the Clackamas Mall shooting made that choice to not shoot. He lived, but could have easily died having gave the shooter the time to respond. In that case the armed citizen was also highly trained professionally, I am certain his training influenced his actions greatly. The hard part is identifying the fact under stress and comparing that to your skill at marksmanship.
because of the complexity of such a situation under stress I dont think there is a solid answer to the moral question of should you engage, but the fratricide topic is more of an argument to getting training and regular practice of those skills.
I think I was distracted with the "needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" idea that I assumed suggested purposly commiting fratricide as a tactic to stop the shooter.
In my opinion, one has that right to take the chance if ones life is in danger but morally one shouldnt exercise that right if one knows for a fact their actions could take innocent lives. The armed citizen in the Clackamas Mall shooting made that choice to not shoot. He lived, but could have easily died having gave the shooter the time to respond. In that case the armed citizen was also highly trained professionally, I am certain his training influenced his actions greatly. The hard part is identifying the fact under stress and comparing that to your skill at marksmanship.
because of the complexity of such a situation under stress I dont think there is a solid answer to the moral question of should you engage, but the fratricide topic is more of an argument to getting training and regular practice of those skills.
It seems to me one of the premises being offered is a certain level of collateral damage to innocents would have been acceptable because of the great level of loss of life at Pulse. If in stopping the gunman after he had killed only ten people I happen to kill five more the math works out as being justified. Look I saved 34 innocents and it only cost "me" five.
The problem I have with this premise is it can only exist in argument in hindsight. No one can know how many lives are actually on the table to be saved.
The problem I have with this premise is it can only exist in argument in hindsight. No one can know how many lives are actually on the table to be saved.