Mass Shooting In New Zealand

Status
Not open for further replies.
I don’t think even if carry of firearms is free and openly allowed that there would be a high probability of someone being armed when and where these events happen.

The percentage of the population that is allowed to carry is low. The percentage of people
That are allowed to carry who actually do is even lower. You might have a couple of legally armed people in a sizable crowd under the most likely in which conditions you’d find someone carrying. A pistol against a long gun is not going to give much advantage either.

I’ve seen people that do open carry pistols where allowed but their physical prowess is very questionable.
Click to expand...

Check this out.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBYSau64LOc
 
So one time against people that only wanted to rob the place and not bent on mass murder.
Still
My opinion that the hero concealed carrier is going save the day against someone bent on killing the maximum amount of people isn’t likely to happen.

A lot of robbers are just bluffing, they don’t really want to kill people, get arrested or die for an insane political reason.
 
Spouting something like shootings take place in gun free zones and you will be quickly debunked.
Click to expand...
Shootings do take place in gun free zones, and they take place in non gun free zones too. The difference is that in the non gun free zones at least the people have a chance of fighting back and stopping the shooter. That's why the shootings with the highest casualties happen in gun free zones.
 
My opinion that the hero concealed carrier is going save the day against someone bent on killing the maximum amount of people isn’t likely to happen.
Click to expand...

It happens, but not often and not something you can count on happening.

Mark Wilson is credited with turning the tide in Tyler, Texas during the shooting on the square where he apparently shot the gunman several times, only one round apparently actually hitting below the vest. Wilson died for his efforts.

Concealed carrier attempted to stop a gunman in Houston, but was shot through both legs and crippled before he fired a shot. He was shot 3 times.
https://www.khou.com/article/news/l...ng-after-west-houston-mass-shooting/235933144

You have this that happened in Arlington, Texas where a concealed carrier stopped a shooter before it ostensibly became a mass shooting.
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/arl...ded-arlington-restaurant-shooting-reports-say

Here are some other similar events...
https://reason.com/volokh/2018/05/14/civilians-with-guns-intervening-in-activ

Whereas Byron Wilson did try to intervene with a Houston shooter, not long later, another Houston mass shooter went on shooting for a prolonged period of time and NO non-LEOs engaged him. https://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-new...g-attack-gunman-killed-by-police-773530179522

Dan McKown was shot by the Tacoma Mall shooter in 2005. Dan was a concealed carrier who opted to verbally engage the shooter that then promptly shot Dan numerous times, crippling him for life. https://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=189562&highlight=tacoma+mall

No non-LEOs attempted to engage the mass shooter in Dallas in 2016.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_shooting_of_Dallas_police_officers

So it isn't likely to happen. It does happen from time to time, but it isn't something you can count on by any stretch.
 
To Glenn's point, some of the mass shooters are studying up. The Parkland shooter had actually been through the school drills and knew the responses. His decision to pull the fire alarm was done ahead of time not for chaos, but to get the students out of the rooms and into the hallways for him to shoot at without having to break into the rooms one at a time.
 
Double Naught Spy said:
Comically, that wasn't what you stated at all. You explicitly stated that whacko killers do not go on sprees in these places, specifically mentioning police stations. They most certainly do.







So you gave the impression that the presence of armed people would therefore preclude the shootings from ever happening, and that just isn't the case. Injuries and death may be more limited, but this does not stop the events from happening. Of course in the Detroit incident to which I linked the video, the shooter managed to shoot the vast majority of the officers present and engaged. It WAS a mass shooting with 4 officers shot.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/01/23/michigan.shooting/index.html
Click to expand...



I don’t consider four killed as a spree. That happens fairly frequently across the country with nary a “mass shooting” media frenzy. Tragic but not a spree. Armed people on site did prevent a spree of killing. The killers were met in each case at the point of first shots and stopped him there. He did not walk calmly though the station back and forth killing 20 people.

Just because someone tries something does not equate to succeeding in doing it. Armed people do mitigate violent assaults. That is why so many of us carry open or concealed. To protect ourselves and family from individual targeted assault or caught up in an attempted spree. And I do believe when attempts in such armed venues are often thwarted it does deter future spree killers from choosing such sites for their display.

And yes, being armed does not equate to always coming out unscathed. It just raises your odds to better than nothing. The more armed people at a location the better the chances are of stopping. There are no guarantees just making it less likely or less tragic.

In many of the shooting sprees even if the person confronting the shooter is not successful in immediately stopping the killer, often it disrupts his plan and he either gets pinned in location or decides he has made his run and offs himself.
 
Last edited:
If I can get my family or me to an exit, I will do so without engaging the shooter.
My gun is for my protection, not for the ending of a shooting spree.
I don’t carry to protect the public, nor am I trained or expected to do so by any government entity. If an armed person is between me and safety, or their aggression is preventing me from retreating to safety then I will attempt to engage them.
I’m not real sure what I think about people who appoint themselves as shepherd to the public because they posses a gun or a carry permit. If you can save everyone, great. I don’t carry to save everyone, I don’t expect others to do the same for me either.
Odds are statistically there’s few others in the crowd carrying like me... if any.
 
We don't know that much about selection of shooting venues to definitively say that armed presence is or is not as powerful as the symbolic nature of the locale to the shooter.

The Parkland shooter must have known there was armed presence. There was a Jewish school shooter a few years ago that passed on one place because it had armed guards for another.

I think it is more likely that places of worship and schools have a psychological attraction more than the worry about armed resistance.

Since about 80% of folks with permits, licenses - don't carry that much is a telling statistic. Multiple that by the low population percents with permits, opposition isn't that much of a factor for those with some symbolic mission.

Interestingly, I found a group that had higher carry number than the general population in most states. It was realtors - who feared attack while showing a house - came in at 15%.
 
I would agree that these targets are chosen more for the shock value to public than any other reason.
Someone shoots up a criminal biker gang hangout isn’t going cause public outrage and shock like these tragedies of recent times.
 
I think that one of the challenges is that these losers can engage in meticulous planning, but not completely rational thought. And many of them are on a suicide mission.

The NZ shooting is troubling to me because the shooter clearly wanted to influence American domestic politics. The events in the Netherlands today are disturbing too, looks initially like it could be a form of retaliation.
 
I think that one of the challenges is that these losers can engage in meticulous planning, but not completely rational thought.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but the ability to study and plan an attack IS rational thought. It's wrong, its evil, but it is rational thought. A complex, complicated task, thought out and performed cannot be considered "irrational thought", and that is one of the biggest "dis-services" we do to ourselves, the constant stating that that these evil acts are irrational and done by people who are "mentally ill".

Because, while in our opinion, its irrational to do such a thing, and therefore the actors MUST be mentally ill, saying that creates an impression that these people are not able to plan and perform complex actions, which is, clearly, NOT the case.

As to attacks on police stations, I think it's worthwhile to distinguish a difference between a mass shooting, and a deliberate attack on the police, which results in a mass shooting.

I think one needs to look at attacks on police in a slightly different light, because, unlike attacks on crowds of (presumably) unarmed people, the police are armed, and the attackers know this going in. HOW many, if any, attacks at police stations were NOT attacks against the police?? What I mean is, that if your object is just to shoot people these attackers don't go to police stations for that, they choose other places. But, if the object is to shoot police, then they go to where the police gather.
I don't put this in exactly the same class as a mass shooting at a mall, a church, a club, a concert or a political rally.
 
I'm sorry, but the ability to study and plan an attack IS rational thought. It's wrong, its evil, but it is rational thought. A complex, complicated task, thought out and performed cannot be considered "irrational thought", and that is one of the biggest "dis-services" we do to ourselves, the constant stating that that these evil acts are irrational and done by people who are "mentally ill".
Click to expand...

I'm not trying to excuse the behavior or blame mental illness. I think that it is possible to rationally plan an event that leads to completely irrational outcomes. And that makes it much more difficult to prevent- like terrorism.

One thing that I see in common with these losers is their inflated egos.
 
I’m not real sure what I think about people who appoint themselves as shepherd to the public because they posses a gun or a carry permit. If you can save everyone, great.
Click to expand...
Its called being a sheepdog. Certainly better than being a victim (sheep) or a mass shooter (wolf). The sheep fall victim to the wolves, the sheepdogs fight to stop the wolves.
 
Interestingly, I found a group that had higher carry number than the general population in most states. It was realtors - who feared attack while showing a house - came in at 15%.
Click to expand...
That does make sense, realtors do put themselves in vulnerable positions, I know from having worked with a realtor, and so it's smart for them to be armed and well trained. Same thing with Taxi and Uber drivers.
 
I won’t be a victim, but it’s not my duty to protect the public. It’s my responsibility to carry my firearm in a manner that doesn’t injure others. I promise to protect me and my family within my means.
It’s really not the topic at hand.
I just don’t feel that widespread gun ownership will stop any of these acts of terrorism. If someone does succeed in stopping a similar attack, then it was luck that the right person was present at the right time.
It’s not about gun free zones, it’s about someone wanting to cause public shock. These people plan to die in the commission of these acts. I think they might even consider the potential of an armed person trying to stop them.
 
It’s not about gun free zones, it’s about someone wanting to cause public shock. These people plan to die in the commission of these acts. I think they might even consider the potential of an armed person trying to stop them.
Click to expand...
Well yes, some of these mass shooters hope to have the police shoot them, suicide by cop as its called.
 
It’s inevitable that more of these attacks will happen. It’s a sad reality of modern times. The good guy with a gun probably won’t be there for the next either. The good guy with a gun theory is loosing credibility with each event. More and more people are armed than ever, but yet the attacks are increasing. The attacks are so numerous it’s hard to even recall them all.
This attack was not chosen because it was a gun free zone, let’s not kid ourselves.
Not all suicide by cop incidents were mass shootings, a lot of them the guns weren’t even real. One happened near me just the other day.
The
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top