Defenseless in the PDRMa

W

woodit

New member
Source: Boston Herald (Letters)
> Published: Friday, Jan 11, 2001
> Author: David Bergquist
>
> Louis "Sandy" Javelle was my friend. On Dec. 26 in Wakefield, he was
killed
> by a madman.
>
> Sandy held both a federal firearms license and a permit to carry a handgun
> in New Hampshire. Ironically, the gun laws in Massachusetts prevented him
> from carrying a concealed handgun. But these same laws did not prevent
> Michael McDermott from obtaining illegal firearms.
>
> When the rampage started, Sandy told co-workers to lock the door behind
> him and barricade it. He then confronted McDermott and became the third
> victim. If Sandy had been permitted to carry a pistol, he could have
stopped
> McDermott. That meant that five other people could possible have survived
> this tragedy. But Sandy did not have that option.
>
> David Bergquist, Temple, N.H.
>
> Actual scanned image of letter at:

> http://www.KeepAndBearArms.com/images/wakefieldletter.jpg
>
>
>
>
 
Long time lurker here but I must chime in here to clear up a few facts. I was born and raised in the MA city where the psyco lived, I am however a political refugee from MA now living in the free state of New Hampshire. It is MUCH easier for someone from out of state to get a MA ccw than it is for a MA resident to get a ccw. How twisted. I also find it very unlikely someone with a concealable handgun could have stopped the murderer. He was psychotic, ~300 pounds and armed with a 12 guage he was familiiar with and killing everyone he saw. He only stopped killing when he decided to. I think if someone was there with a ccw they MIGHT have lowered the death toll but would have died for the effort.
 
This is infuriating. :mad:

This man could be a *living* hero if he were allowed by the Unconstitutional Commonwealth of Massachusetts to protect himself and others by carrying a firearm. I hope his next of kin sues the hell out of everyone responsible for his disarmament.

Anyone else having a problem connecting to keepandbeararms.com? I can't even get through to the home page. :confused:


BTW - Welcome to The Firing Line, MK82.

You are correct in what you say. Just *having* a gun is no guarantee that you will sucessfully defend yourself. I would point out, though, that someone trained and experienced could have dropped the guy with a .22...

Having a gun would have at least given Sandy a fighting chance. They don't call them "the great equalizer" for nothing.
 
Those with... or without, would have been glad to lower the rate of people killed... something that most anti's don't wish to understand.. or hate:

I also find it very unlikely someone with a concealable handgun could have stopped the murderer. He was psychotic, ~300 pounds and armed with a 12 guage he was familiiar with and killing everyone he saw. He only stopped killing when he decided to. I think if someone was there with a ccw they MIGHT have lowered the death toll but would have died for the effort.

Anti's like yourself think that "nothing could be done but let's pass gun laws anyway". Someone could have done something, but they couldn't. Why, because we obey the damn laws YOU pass. And, YOU don't understand that WE are willing to die for our fellow man... while YOU are content with letting them die.. for YOUR own political cause. Who's the "bad guy" here? It sure isn't the members of TFL or the NRA.. Why don't YOU people look into the mirror.. then you'll see the true "evil" of this planet.

USP45usp
 
MK82,

Thanks for clearing up a few facts.
However, I disagree with your pesimistic attitude.

Yes, he was three hundred pounds (sounds like a big target)

Yes, he did have a 12 guage he was familiar with (hopefuly a person with a concealed weapon would have a pistol he/she was familiar with)

No, he was not killing everyone he saw. I believe he had specific folks in mind, I could be wrong.

Yes he only stopped killing when he wanted to (however, I firmly believe a few 230 grain HydraShok rounds from a Sig 220 may have made him want to stop killing a little sooner)

Your statement that a person with a CCW "might" have lowered the death toll is interesting. We will never know. I for one would rather have "might" as a chance instead of none at all.

I mean no disrespect to the persons who perished in this tragedy and my prayers are with the families.
 
The right to defend yourself doesn't mean you will necessarily succeed, but it does give you the means to go down fighting if that's the way things play out.

The fundamental issue here is not whether somebody with a handgun could have stopped this guy. Maybe, maybe not.

What is fundamental is that someone should have had the right to try.

Instead, he walked in and took his sweet time, armed not only with a 12-gauge, but also with a government guarantee that his victims would be defenseless.

Beyond sad.
 
Exactly what in my post would lead anyone to believe I am an anti? I may be anti on many things, like anti-moron or maybe even anti-abortion but certainly not anti-gun. There is no more freedom loving red blooded American than I. I just voluntarily left the military after 11 years of service to try to live a more normal life. You have no idea how much it pains me to not be able to return to the state of my birth (MA) for political reasons. The laws in MA are imposible for me to obey therefore I had to find a new home state (NH).

I may have made a poor attempt at two points in my original post, allow me to attempt clarification:
1. It is easier to get a MA non-resident ccw than a MA resident ccw. This is very wrong.
2. If someone (an average person)in that office had had a concealable handgun and used it they would have died a hero. If someone thinks they are going to get an instant one stop shot on a guy like that in that situation you are sadly mistaken. As far as sacrificing yourself to try to save lives goes, if you've never faced a situation like that but "know" what you would do, you are, again, sadly mistaken.
 
MK82,

If you are saying with absolute certainty that you "know"
If someone (an average person)in that office had had a concealable handgun and used it they would have died a hero.
Click to expand...
Then it is you who are sadly mistaken. Nobody can prove a negative.

You can't say, with absolute certainty, that someone with a concealed handgun *wouldn't* be able to stop this guy, anymore than I can say, with absolute certainty, that the same someone *would* be able to stop him.

I think that calling you an anti is a bit overboard, but I wonder if you can see the point that others are trying to make.

Here is the point: The victims would have had a better chance with a handgun than with a simple, "Please don't kill me."
 
hey Blues Man.

Please tell me you are NOT on AO-hel-L!

I got a new aohell cd in the mail today in a nice case and everything :D
included in it was a little note saying "read this only if you've decided NOT to try AOheL".... I opened it up and it says " Dear Friend,
I'm not sure why you have not accepted our free trial offer ... up to 700hrs free for a month.... I'm very tempted to send them an email and let them know why :D
 
"would have", "could have"...

I hesitate to argue a peripheral point, especially in light of the hideous tragedy that occurred in Mass., but MK82 - you mention the perp being 300 lbs. and that this would preclude a one-shot stop. I disagree. Set marksmanship aside for a moment and just consider physics. His size may well have been to his detriment in that more bodymass would mean more area for a round to deposit it's energy into. It's far more likely he would have remained on his feet had overpenetration occurred.

As for that scumbag's ability to continue deploying a shotgun effectively while taking fire, my money's on the goodguy with his back to a wall, defending his life - regardless of perceived firepower ... Not the psychotic loser who kills the weakened.

Byron said it best ..."with a government
guarantee that his victims would be defenseless.

V.
 
One thing to note.

This man went out and confronted the killer -- UNARMED.

He clearly had the courage. What he needed was the weapon denied him by the laws of the commonwealth of MA.
 
WAGCEVP,

I don't follow. Whaddaya mean?

Please understand, I am feeling a bit thick today. 'Splain it to me with small words by email if you like.

Thanks. :)
 
MK82 says: "2. If someone (an average person)in that office had had a concealable handgun and used it they would have died a hero. If someone thinks they are going to get an instant one stop shot on a guy like that in that situation you are sadly mistaken."

What an absolute load of K-R-A-P. Were you in that office when the event happened? Do you know where all the possible cover/concealment positions were? Do you have any clue about firefight tactics... and do you have some Godlike insight about those who do?

I don't have those answers either. But I do know that 1) the guy would do down fast with 2 hits to COM and a cranial vault followup, 2) such a response is capable by properly trained civilian CCW folks and 3) such a response is impossible unless you've got a gun.

I don't know you from Adam, MK82, but with the kind of mindset you display here you are setting yourself up for failure in a lethal encounter.
 
I concur with Glock-a-roo, 6ft plus and 300+lbs means that my 230 grn Hydra-shock is fully expanded when it hits the vitals. (Heart, Aorta, Liver, Kidneys, Nervous system.)

However this could quickly turn into a penetration vs. expansion, argument so I'm backing out slowly.

Quote for this:

"And everybody figgered Blaine was such a big man" meditated Johnny
"Well" answered Allision "...Big or little, it's all the same to a .45"
Which comment embraced the full philosophy of the gunfighter.
R Howard. (yes the Conan Guy)
 
hate to use a cliche'...

welcome Mk82 but I have to disagree with you.
The guy confronted the psycho and got killed. He was unarmed. He had no chance. Would dying with a gun in his hand after taking a couple of shots at the nut have been worse than being cut down like tall grass, defenseless? Not in my book. He was unarmed. He had no chance.
If he could have saved ONE of his coworkers wouldn't it have been worth it? If you knew you were going to get killed anyway, why not take the shot? At that point you have nothing to lose but perhaps the life of one of your coworkers to gain.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top