Double Naught Spy
New member
Not sad that he left law enforcement. Just sad he was scum.
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.
Could you have stopped it?
- Thread starter JJ45
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Seems to me after reading these posts..........(and I hope I am totally wrong) that there are some young video game commandos who envision themselves making these hero moves.....
Seems to me that you should call these out individually instead of making a blanket statement.
They started out as armed robbers, ended up as active shooters..vs the police, who were outgunned..._________________
Armed robbers VS active shooters.
A better example might be the Trolley Square Mall incident in 2007. Yes, the "good guy with a gun" who initially engaged the shooter was an off-duty cop, but that's not really the point. The point is that all he had was a Kimber compact 1911 with a total of seven rounds -- and no spare magazine. Nonetheless, by engaging the shooter he pinned him down and stopped him from seeking out more victims. He took the shooter out of the fight long enough for the cavalry to arrive.
Exactly the point I was trying to make. They may not have STOPPED to BG in his tracks, but they stopped the killing.
Like this shooting;
https://bearingarms.com/ba-staff/2013/09/18/yes-concealed-carriers-have-stopped-mass-shootings/
The fact is whether it is a police officer or an armed citizen, an armed response cuts down the time the BG has to kill innocent. I understand that most CCW's have very little training, but to be honest your average patrol cop has very little training too.
They started out as armed robbers, ended up as active shooters..vs the police, who were outgunned...
Welcome to the LAPD.
Whole different mind set. Do you lump Platt and Maddox into the active shooter category?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_FBI_Miami_shootout
I see people trying to link the Dallas PD killer as well, he was on a mission to kill cops, not kids at the mall.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_shooting_of_Dallas_police_officers
Again different mind set.
By your logic anyone who shoots it out with the responding cops is a active shooter.
Last edited:
By your logic anyone who shoots it out with the responding cops is a active shooter
A bit of an aside perhaps but if we begin to advocate moving towards the sound of gunfire you don't really know the situation you are moving towards.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
We really don't need to go there. [Hint]Nanuk said:Seems to me after reading these posts..........(and I hope I am totally wrong) that there are some young video game commandos who envision themselves making these hero moves.....
Seems to me that you should call these out individually instead of making a blanket statement.
Double Naught Spy
New member
Ever notice how the only people tell the Nick Meli story have only the Nick Meli source? Did the shooter really retreat because he saw Nick Meli or did he do so because his gun had jammed? Which caused the shooter to stop shooting? I am thinking it was the gun that stopped working that he couldn't get to work, but that is just me.
The fact is whether it is a police officer or an armed citizen, an armed response cuts down the time the BG has to kill innocent.
Cops and armed citizens are innocents, like Mark Wilson or John Wilson. Or this officer.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpb-mtjN9q8
Let's not forget that.
I understand that most CCW's have very little training, but to be honest your average patrol cop has very little training too.
Compared to CCW requirements across the country, LEO training is much more than CCW. Many states require absolutely no actual training for CCW. Some don't require a shooting test, even. In 16 states now, IIRC, no permit is required for citizens to carry guns, no qualifying exams, no training. I don't see any law enforcement agencies going that route.
Double Naught Spy
New member
Active shooter in Philadelphia with cops right now, 5 cops shot...
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/aug/14/philadelphia-active-shooter-reported/
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...lphia-they-respond-shooting-incident-n1042436
https://13wham.com/news/nation-world/officers-shot-responding-to-active-shooter-in-philadelphia
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/aug/14/philadelphia-active-shooter-reported/
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...lphia-they-respond-shooting-incident-n1042436
https://13wham.com/news/nation-world/officers-shot-responding-to-active-shooter-in-philadelphia
Aguila Blanca
Staff
The headline I saw said six cops shot.Active shooter in Philadelphia with cops right now, 5 cops shot...
But ... it was a narco warrant situation that went bad (SURPISE!), not a mass shooting. Off-topic for this discussion.
Double Naught Spy
New member
I see people trying to link the Dallas PD killer as well, he was on a mission to kill cops, not kids at the mall.
Do you mean to suggest that motive or targets determine whether it is a mass or active shooting?
What are they then, if not an 'active shooter'? The point was when confronted, bad guy shooters stop..MY point is they sometimes do and sometimes don't..By your logic anyone who shoots it out with the responding cops is a active shooter.
Hello Philadelphia August 2019, yesterday.
A bit of an aside perhaps but if we begin to advocate moving towards the sound of gunfire you don't really know the situation you are moving towards.
Who is advocating that?
Do you mean to suggest that motive or targets determine whether it is a mass or active shooting?
Can we stick to the OP or are we discussing every shooter?
I am saying that they are different animals, I see it as two separate situations. I thought that we started out talking about a mass killing and it morphed into anyone that was shooting for whatever reason. Mass killings happen in places that are soft targets, shopping centers, malls etc and we as citizens have a higher probability of being there when it happens and being able to affect the outcome.
A situation such as the ambush on the Dallas cops, we have zero chance of getting involved (good thing) since there is already a large police presence. Just get out of the way and the line of fire.
The courthouse shooting recently, he thought he was gonna shoot up a federal court, he soon realized he made a miscalculation as he came under fire from armed security and federal agents. No armed citizens there, not a soft target.
I think anytime anyone is shooting at anyone they can be called an active shooter.
This thread has morphed into a hydra.
What are they then, if not an 'active shooter'? The point was when confronted, bad guy shooters stop..MY point is they sometimes do and sometimes don't..
Hello Philadelphia August 2019, yesterday.
We started out discussing mass killings at public venues. Now you want to discuss police raids gone bad. Different animals.
Nanuk, would it be safe to pretty much divide these things into two major divisions?
What I see is that we have a group of people who have been mentally unbalanced and went after groups of people for the sake of destroying as many (usually) random victims that they feel deserve to be made dead. Not always logical or rational. Las vegas, columbine, Aurora, luby's and the various mall shootings... The goal is disorganized and even though they are planned, they are somewhat like improv night. We plan, fantasize for hours, write a script, set a date and time and place, then go to town. Maybe the general target will be ethnic, religious, or even the general police population such as the donut shop massacre many years ago. But even so, some of these people are harboring such viciousness and anger and determination that the instinct for survival and determination to complete the mission will make it so all consuming that the shooter would walk through fire just to kill one more time.
Offhand at this time, Luby's has always been stuck in my thoughts as a truly different one. He blamed the city and the population, years of anger and hate simmering, and one day he just went all dill pickles in the head and walked into a restaurant and started shooting those random people who he blamed for every problem in his life. He would have killed the whole city if he could have. Every shot he took seemed to be something personal, rather than a different kind of nut who just killed whoever he could see because he was on a rampage. I don't think that he would have stopped until he was stopped and would have fought everyone to the end. Otherwise, I think that this situation may have been ended quickly if armed citizens had been there, he seemed to be unfocused on the whole and tunneling in on the one in front of him.
Did the guy in aurora really seem to be consumed by hate and revenge? Did he really have a deep grudge against all of humanity, with thousands of people who deserved to die, or was he just wanting to kill a bunch of people? The guy from luby's was seeing the face of his boss, the guy at the bank, the cop who gave him a ticket, wives, girlfriends, every face that had ever looked at his and did him wrong.
Then there are a number of mass killings that are more similar, IMO, to mass assassinations. The guy who goes and kills his entire family, kills off his coworkers in an office, so forth. Not always so thoroughly planned, sometimes impromptu, and could have done it just as well with gasoline but wanted to see the faces.
This pa and some other stories like the la or miami shootout don't really fit that. It was a reaction. Not planned. In this case especially, the instinct for survival is a whole lot more powerful, in this case, instinct for self preservation is what triggered what may have been an unplanned killing spree. I can't quite think of any others right now, but there have been many mass and spree killings that had a specific trigger that weren't as much of a long term exercise in aberrant thinking and actions.
There is a perfectly human desire to compartmentalize everything into as few boxes as possible. We have well over 100.000 words in the dictionary that are currently used, but just about every person out there would prefer to keep things simple. Police psychologists probably have a dozen or more categories that they group these people into, such as "crazy, disorganized revenge shooter" and "deliberate, organized, thrill shooter". It's easy for the people to say "oh, there was another mass shooting. I'll bet that he used a gun, we need to ban them."
What I see is that we have a group of people who have been mentally unbalanced and went after groups of people for the sake of destroying as many (usually) random victims that they feel deserve to be made dead. Not always logical or rational. Las vegas, columbine, Aurora, luby's and the various mall shootings... The goal is disorganized and even though they are planned, they are somewhat like improv night. We plan, fantasize for hours, write a script, set a date and time and place, then go to town. Maybe the general target will be ethnic, religious, or even the general police population such as the donut shop massacre many years ago. But even so, some of these people are harboring such viciousness and anger and determination that the instinct for survival and determination to complete the mission will make it so all consuming that the shooter would walk through fire just to kill one more time.
Offhand at this time, Luby's has always been stuck in my thoughts as a truly different one. He blamed the city and the population, years of anger and hate simmering, and one day he just went all dill pickles in the head and walked into a restaurant and started shooting those random people who he blamed for every problem in his life. He would have killed the whole city if he could have. Every shot he took seemed to be something personal, rather than a different kind of nut who just killed whoever he could see because he was on a rampage. I don't think that he would have stopped until he was stopped and would have fought everyone to the end. Otherwise, I think that this situation may have been ended quickly if armed citizens had been there, he seemed to be unfocused on the whole and tunneling in on the one in front of him.
Did the guy in aurora really seem to be consumed by hate and revenge? Did he really have a deep grudge against all of humanity, with thousands of people who deserved to die, or was he just wanting to kill a bunch of people? The guy from luby's was seeing the face of his boss, the guy at the bank, the cop who gave him a ticket, wives, girlfriends, every face that had ever looked at his and did him wrong.
Then there are a number of mass killings that are more similar, IMO, to mass assassinations. The guy who goes and kills his entire family, kills off his coworkers in an office, so forth. Not always so thoroughly planned, sometimes impromptu, and could have done it just as well with gasoline but wanted to see the faces.
This pa and some other stories like the la or miami shootout don't really fit that. It was a reaction. Not planned. In this case especially, the instinct for survival is a whole lot more powerful, in this case, instinct for self preservation is what triggered what may have been an unplanned killing spree. I can't quite think of any others right now, but there have been many mass and spree killings that had a specific trigger that weren't as much of a long term exercise in aberrant thinking and actions.
There is a perfectly human desire to compartmentalize everything into as few boxes as possible. We have well over 100.000 words in the dictionary that are currently used, but just about every person out there would prefer to keep things simple. Police psychologists probably have a dozen or more categories that they group these people into, such as "crazy, disorganized revenge shooter" and "deliberate, organized, thrill shooter". It's easy for the people to say "oh, there was another mass shooting. I'll bet that he used a gun, we need to ban them."
Last edited:
Double Naught Spy
New member
brianq, this article divides mass shootings into three types.
https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/essays/mass-shootings.html
Public mass shootings
Familial mass shootings
Other Felony Mass shootings
What we seem to be most fearful of are the public mass shootings as they seem to be focal point of the discussions here. Oddly enough, those that seem to strike the most fear in us are the rarest of the 3 categorizations. You are more likely to be in a familial event or other felony mass shooting event than in an public mass shooting. Depending on the year, there were more people killed in family events and in other felony events than in public events, but in some years, public events prevailed, but less frequently.
The family aspect is interesting and sort of follows the pattern of violence seen in non-mass shootings whereby you are more likely to be murdered by a family member or person known to you than by a stranger.
I know folks like to talk about "school shootings" but even these are not so simple. You have seemingly random mass shootings at schools where the shooter has no affiliation with the school, but most school shootings seem to be targeted or revenge sorts of shooting. Others, are employee-based just like any other workplace mass shooting, only it happened in a school instead of a post office, lawnmower plant, etc. by a disgruntled employee. In other words, the location doesn't define the motivation despite the fact that we often classify by location.
Some mass shootings are "kill everybody" sorts of mass shootings and some are "kill specific people" mass shootings. There are just many ways these can be broken down.
https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/essays/mass-shootings.html
Public mass shootings
Familial mass shootings
Other Felony Mass shootings
What we seem to be most fearful of are the public mass shootings as they seem to be focal point of the discussions here. Oddly enough, those that seem to strike the most fear in us are the rarest of the 3 categorizations. You are more likely to be in a familial event or other felony mass shooting event than in an public mass shooting. Depending on the year, there were more people killed in family events and in other felony events than in public events, but in some years, public events prevailed, but less frequently.
The family aspect is interesting and sort of follows the pattern of violence seen in non-mass shootings whereby you are more likely to be murdered by a family member or person known to you than by a stranger.
I know folks like to talk about "school shootings" but even these are not so simple. You have seemingly random mass shootings at schools where the shooter has no affiliation with the school, but most school shootings seem to be targeted or revenge sorts of shooting. Others, are employee-based just like any other workplace mass shooting, only it happened in a school instead of a post office, lawnmower plant, etc. by a disgruntled employee. In other words, the location doesn't define the motivation despite the fact that we often classify by location.
Some mass shootings are "kill everybody" sorts of mass shootings and some are "kill specific people" mass shootings. There are just many ways these can be broken down.
armednfree
New member
People talk about these events as if the intent of the shooter was to just kill. The intent of the shooter is to instill fear. He rides an ego rush that he's always craved. The more of a demented sick loser he is the more he craves it.
Double Naught Spy
New member
People talk about these events as if the intent of the shooter was to just kill. The intent of the shooter is to instill fear. He rides an ego rush that he's always craved. The more of a demented sick loser he is the more he craves it.
I take it that you are not a psychologist or psychiatrist?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.