Could you have stopped it?

[Aguila Blanca]

But if you have a G19 and know you’re quite proficient to 50 yards... that’s radically different. Wait, and someone will comment that shooting at a mass shooter at that distance will get you charged criminally comes along in 3, 2, 1 (news flash it won’t)

50 yards for a handgun shot under stress, at a target that's probably moving, in a crowded location, isn't just difficult -- it's idiotic. As to taking that shot and not getting charged ... I doubt that you can guarantee that someone wouldn't be charged even in the jurisdiction you serve as a police officer. You certainly can't guarantee that they wouldn't be charged in any jurisdiction in the country.

Especially if the shot missed, and hit an innocent party.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

I also have been strongly considering some insurance... not to open a can of worms, but any opinions on USCCA or competitors?

Off topic in this thread. Please start your own thread if you wish to discuss carry insurance.

Not in Tactics and Training.

 

[yorec]

Off duty law enforcement officers have become involved in such events in the past. (Trolley Square) So considering whether I could have stopped it or not? Of course I consider it...

Way too many variables to factor them all in, but I know I’ll try to stop it.

One thing I’ve considered which is different from the standard way of thinking is not drawing until I actually see a target. (Bad guy actually firing on innocents) this would keep me from being confused with bad guys since my firearm is still concealed and maybe not make me a priority to such bad guy in the event he spots me before I spot him.

But this also puts me behind in an action beats reaction sort of way...

But yup, I’ll be doing something and realize I may not get home that night or ever again. That’s just the nature of that beast.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

"...the heinous crimes committed in Texas and Ohio?..." Two very different circumstances that require two very different responses.
"...36 people in less than 35 seconds..." Isn't terribly impressive given the circumstances of a crowded shopping mall.

Neither the Texas shooting or Ohio shooting was in a shopping mall.

El Paso was inside a Walmart.

Ohio was out on the street.

 

[P5 Guy]

No, I am half cripple with heart problems.

 

[davidsog]

I was not trying to shame anything other than PC excuses. If self preservation kicks in, you don’t feel it’s your day to play hero, and you head for an exit or shelter taking as many innocents with you as possible? No judgement here. I understand that. Hell thats still heroic. I’m not saying I would brave up and run to gunfire. I’ve been to Iraq twice and Afghanistan once as line infantry. I’ve been a cop over 10 years. I’m not an ace cop or war hero, but I’ve been shot at. I’ve seen the same person react to two very similar situations in radically different ways. Because I’ve seen that, I’m not going to bravado what I would do even if I have responded more or less appropriately under fire in the past. I have kids now, and a lot more going on than I used to.

What I am saying is if you’re at peace taking the risk, and have confidence in your equipment and abilities (probably not an lcp, and probably not if I hadn’t fired a round in the past 3 years) that you stand a fair chance at stopping something like that, are you going to let “I should be a good witness” or “I might get sued by the guys family” stand in your way? That’s the mentality I’m talking about. It’s letting peripheral circumstances and what ifs get in the way of possibly saving lives. If I did respond, did shoot the guy and possibly saved lives, and got sued for it after the fact... I would still be at peace and sleep like a baby at night.


And an important advantage you would likely have in a scenario like this that the shooter doesn’t. You know he’s there, and an idea of what direction he’s in. He has no clue you’re there. I still wouldn’t run around with a .32 seecamp trying to play hero against someone with a rifle. But if you have a G19 and know you’re quite proficient to 50 yards... that’s radically different. Wait, and someone will comment that shooting at a mass shooter at that distance will get you charged criminally comes along in 3, 2, 1 (news flash it won’t)
__________________

Honestly, the first thing I thought when I read your first post:

https://thefiringline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6735606&postcount=21

Was your fear stood out and it read like false bravado trying to convince yourself of something.

 

[Don Fischer]

"...the heinous crimes committed in Texas and Ohio?..." Two very different circumstances that require two very different responses.
"...36 people in less than 35 seconds..." Isn't terribly impressive given the circumstances of a crowded shopping mall.
"...shooting back at the cowardly shooter..." Aside from the likelihood of getting shot by equally frightened cops, an untrained CCW type would very likely endanger bystanders and panicked civilians
"...three to four competitions a month..." That is playing shooting games. It is not practice or training for anything but the shooting games.
"...stopping power..." There's no such thing.
"...propane tank bombs..." Explosives in a propane tank or pressure cooker maybe. However, a full propane tank doesn't and will not explode. Nice big ball of fire, but no frag. Poke a hole in an LPG tank gets you get a nice, gentle, white cloud spreading over the ground(propane being heavier than air) but nothing else without a spark.

Super post!

 

[zxcvbob]

Some goober with an Unkle Mike's holster and a LCP .380 is going to go up against an AK or AR pistol armed dude wearing body armor. Ok. unless the BG is RIGHT THERE thats a bad idea.

If the bad guy is RIGHT THERE, I hope Goober takes the shot. And if more people carried (not everybody, that's stupid) there's a better chance that one of them will be RIGHT THERE.

 

[briandg]

The columbine bombs were, iirc, incapable of exploding off of the timer/detonator that they had put in place. A tank full of propane contains no oxygen and hence cannot blow up. the only thing that it can do is to be released into an oxygen rich environment. If a valve is popped or a hole punched in it and the gas catches fire, there will be nothing but a large torch, depending on how much LP is escaping. Propane will only explode when it is gasified and held in an oxygen rich environment at a concentration that is high enough to sustain combustion.The other way of doing it would be to set the thing to burst somehow, flood the area with propane gas, and have a timed spark emitter. Set it up with a bunch of lighted candles concealed somewhere and an electronic device that will open the valve? I can think of several ways to do so.

IIRC, only one explosive device actually worked, probably because they were stupid. They duct taped nails to the outside of the tanks, right? There won't be an explosion that could turn those nails into flying shrapnel.

Sometimes people engage in 'magical thinking.' This refers to thoughts and actions that really aren't realistic, unproven, so forth. "propane explodes, tanks can explode, if we wire a timer to a tank and wrap it with nails, something will happen and it's going to kill everyone in the cafeteria."

In fact, it appears to be impossible or at least nearly impossible to even create an explosion with a tank and a low energy source Tracer bullets from 'normal' calibers blow out. There isn't a fuel air mix that can support the combustion of the gas until the tracer and its heat are gone.. LP is cold, wet, and prone to creating quite a wind. It isn't that simple to pop it off.

There was a comic that I once saw that has stuck with me for decades.

Sidney harris, found at blogspot, contemplative day book

before anyone refers to the USAF fuel/air bombs, remember that they include air. Until that fuel reaches the proper mixture it can't ignite. There are two ways that i know of that this is addressed. First, those bombs carry a large bursting charge that sprays LP in a wide sphere, and gives it a few seconds or so to mix with the atmosphere before it is triggered by a hot, large explosive device. Another way is to add an oxydizer directly to the fuel as it is dispersed, so that the explosive isn't entirely dependent on atmosphere.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

The columbine bombs were, iirc, incapable of exploding off of the timer/detonator that they had put in place. A tank full of propane contains no oxygen and hence cannot blow up. the only thing that it can do is to be released into an oxygen rich environment. If a valve is popped or a hole punched in it and the gas catches fire, there will be nothing but a large torch, depending on how much LP is escaping. Propane will only explode when it is gasified and held in an oxygen rich environment at a concentration that is high enough to sustain combustion.The other way of doing it would be to set the thing to burst somehow, flood the area with propane gas, and have a timed spark emitter. Set it up with a bunch of lighted candles concealed somewhere and an electronic device that will open the valve? I can think of several ways to do so.

The fact that the Columbine attackers were lousy bomb makers does not change the fact that the propane bombs were supposed to be their primary weapons. They resorted to firearms when the bombs failed to detonate. It is speculation that the bombs would have caused hundreds of casualties if they had gone off, but I have yet to see any credible source that argues against that speculation.

The point being that, if we take away guns, people who want to kill other people will just become better bomb makers.

 

[briandg]

The fact that the Columbine attackers were lousy bomb makers does not change the fact that the propane bombs were supposed to be their primary weapons. They resorted to firearms when the bombs failed to detonate.

That is not what I said there. I know, agree, and have constantly read that the plan was to blow the building and then shoot them as the fire drill sent them outside.

The mexican casino fire kille fifty or so people, and that was just a handful of guys with big gas cans. Bombs aren't the only way to cause mayhem. In fact they may be the poorest idea. Many of the mass killings that I have read of would have been far more lethal if different methods had been used, but the people who engage in mass killings are not interested in body count so much as doing it in their chosen maner.

I feel kind of shaky discussing these things. The author of the anarchist's cookbook, which those two criminals owned and read. died in mental anguish over creating it.. He spent years doing public service to attone.

 

[yorec]

The point being that, if we take away guns, people who want to kill other people will just become better bomb makers.

I wish more people (especially the politician breed) understood this little bit of truth.

 

[briandg]

Or maybe just drive through crowds.


Did you know that some states don't allow you to pump your own gasoline? I know that most of the reasoning is for environmental concerns but other concerns are that people can't be trusted to handle pointy things or flammable fluids. This law is unlikely to stop a guy from taking a five gallon jerry can to the mall with him.

 

[scottycoyote]

i have been thinking about what i would have done in that situation.....if i had family with me id get them out of the area but id like to think if i was alone id try to do something. I havent read the entire post but what is the general consensus of engaging an active shooter in a parking lot using your own vehicle as the first weapon?

 

[davidsog]

The point being that, if we take away guns, people who want to kill other people will just become better bomb makers.

Bingo!

 

[5whiskey]

Honestly, the first thing I thought when I read your first post:

https://thefiringline.com/forums/sho...6&postcount=21

Was your fear stood out and it read like false bravado trying to convince yourself of something.

Think that all you like. Just as I don’t really know you, anywhere you’ve been, anything you’ve experienced, et al.... well you don’t know me either. I’m not in fear, I’m currently in my living room typing online. What I was discussing if someone overcomes their fear and feels a conviction to intervene, then “i might get sued” or “it’s not my job” should not be a thought or inhibition. Yet those thoughts are constantly thrown around here. Those thoughts are appropriate if you’re present during a gas station robbery and there’s about a 99% chance the dude will take the money and run without harming anyone. They are not appropriate if someone is killing kids indiscriminately in Walmart.


Funny how everyone at TFL cheered Stephen Williford, who engaged the Sutherland Springs shooter. Yet if anyone mentions responding in a similar manner, hypothetically and if they feel they may be convicted to, it’s scoffed at by “oh but the cops will definitely come and mistake you as the shooter” or a million other hypotheticals. Are all of those possibilities? Yeah, very well could be. Does it pass an operational risk analysis... as in a risk worth taking to save lives? Maybe, depends on who you are and, where you are, the situation, and even what frame of mind you were in when you woke up that morning. My point is that people at least analyze it and don’t shut down automatically because “you’ll get sued” or “you’ll shoot your eye out kid” or whatever other dumb excuse.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Funny how everyone at TFL cheered Stephen Williford, who engaged the Sutherland Springs shooter. Yet if anyone mentions responding in a similar manner, hypothetically and if they feel they may be convicted to, it’s scoffed at by “oh but the cops will definitely come and mistake you as the shooter” or a million other hypotheticals.

But Williford was armed with a scoped AR-15, and when he engaged the shooter there was nobody else even close to the line of fire. And the shooter wasn't in active shooter mode at that moment.

That's a totally different scenario from someone armed with a handgun -- very likely some type of compact or even subcompact handgun -- trying to engage an active shooter with people milling about everywhere.

 

[Lohman446]

Engage an active, rifle toting, possibly body armed individual with a concealed pistol alone? Only if there is no other viable options. Even those of you who are the best trained in this group I would not give 50/50 odds to. Mine are noticeably less. Look you don’t know how competent the individual is, how determined said attacker is, if there is body armor, if there are other attackers present, or a great number of factors. You engage because there is no other acceptable alternative. If I engage such an attacker and my actions allow my wife and children to escape to safety the outcome beyond that is not incredibly vital.

I noted before it is not outside the realm of possibility to stop such an attacker or to survive should you fail. However there is a very good chance you meet the Valkyries as well.

 

[spacemanspiff]

There is a mass shooter taking innocent lives, you’ve heard several shots fired and the shooting continues. You have a firearm, and could possibly save lives by acting quickly. You could also be shot first. You are not obligated to do anything, legally, but as a decent human being with an ounce of bravery do you at least try!?

I get what you are saying. And at one point in my life I was right there where you are at, asking the same question.

My thinking changed once I had a family to care and provide for.

As for human decency, well lets just say I gave up believing humans are inherently decent. Yes, there are good people out there. In fact, probably most people are good. And I spent most of my life thinking it was my moral obligation to help other people. Now though, I have become a bit jaded. I know I am not responsible for anyones safety and security but my family. If that makes me less decent of a human being, well I will have to answer for that when I meet my Maker, won't I?

 

[zxcvbob]

If I'm right there (and armed) and can shoot the bastard in the back of the head at point-blank range and he doesn't even see me, I'll do it. very little question about that. It's a vanishingly small probability, but it's not zero. Anything less favorable than that, I'll have to evaluate it at the time in the few seconds I have. Most likely I'll try to escape, while watching for an opportunity while the bad guy is distracted.

I don't run towards the sound of gunfire, that's a good way to get shot by another good guy. Also, when I get there it might not be obvious who the bad guy is. I don't want to shoot a detective who just put the bad guy down, and I don't want to get shot by him/her either.

Also if there is no possible escape, I might do something desperate (like draw against someone who has the drop on me) but I don't know, I might be too scared at the time.