PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: President-Elect Bob Noel on July 12, 2016, 08:25:26 AM
-
buried in some training slides I have on Active Shooter situations is a short blurb about the 2007 shooting at the New Life Church.
The Active Shooter training had a slide each for a number of shootings in the past several years. The thing about the 2007 New Life Church shooting was that it was the only example where a person with a CCW stopped the gunman before he shot more than 2 people. All the other examples were cases where it was a gun-free zone and the gunman wasn't stopped until after the police (or SWAT or SPs) had arrived, tens of minutes or even hours after many people were killed.
I wonder what lesson can be taken from this....
-
buried in some training slides I have on Active Shooter situations is a short blurb about the 2007 shooting at the New Life Church.
The Active Shooter training had a slide each for a number of shootings in the past several years. The thing about the 2007 New Life Church shooting was that it was the only example where a person with a CCW stopped the gunman before he shot more than 2 people. All the other examples were cases where it was a gun-free zone and the gunman wasn't stopped until after the police (or SWAT or SPs) had arrived, tens of minutes or even hours after many people were killed.
I wonder what lesson can be taken from this....
The obvious lesson is that we need to ban guns.
-
buried in some training slides I have on Active Shooter situations is a short blurb about the 2007 shooting at the New Life Church.
The Active Shooter training had a slide each for a number of shootings in the past several years. The thing about the 2007 New Life Church shooting was that it was the only example where a person with a CCW stopped the gunman before he shot more than 2 people. All the other examples were cases where it was a gun-free zone and the gunman wasn't stopped until after the police (or SWAT or SPs) had arrived, tens of minutes or even hours after many people were killed.
I wonder what lesson can be taken from this....
There are more examples of times where a person with a concealed carry stopped a gunman. There was a mall shooting in Portland that comes to mind. The CCW shot and missed but the act of taking fire brought the gunman to his senses and he attempted to flee, running right into police who shot him as he attempted to leave the mall. Those who don't want to credit concealed carry with anything say the police stopped this guy, but they weren't even entering the mall yet, they were just there as the guy ran out into them. It was the original guy who took a shot that ended it, even without killing the bad guy.
-
The obvious lesson is that we need to ban guns.
Very obvious. If the deputy in that Michigan courtroom hadn't have had a gun, no one would have been shot. I think we need to ban guns from all deputies. For the children.
-
There was an armed guy in the bar in Orlando. Didn't make a whole lot of difference.
-
There was an armed guy in the bar in Orlando. Didn't make a whole lot of difference.
Really? Where did you see that?
-
Really? Where did you see that?
Read it on the New York Times. I believe it was an off duty police officer providing security. Of course you all think everyone should have been armed. What a great idea, mix booze with small caliber firearms.
-
Read it on the New York Times. I believe it was an off duty police officer providing security. Of course you all think everyone should have been armed. What a great idea, mix booze with small caliber firearms.
There are exceptions to every rule. I'm not sure you'll find many that think that having armed drunk people is a good idea for obvious reasons.
On a separate note, I've heard that there was an off duty police officer providing security at the club but I haven't seen anything concrete on that (and to be fair, I haven't looked very hard, either). Either way, you don't know what the situation was. In other words, where was the security guy located when the shooting started? Was he near the entrance, on a break, etc? Once the shooting started, was he able to get a clear shot off without endangering others? There's a lot more factors involved than just simply "someone had a gun and it didn't do any good".
-
Read it on the New York Times. I believe it was an off duty police officer providing security. Of course you all think everyone should have been armed. What a great idea, mix booze with small caliber firearms.
Count me as someone who doesn't think EVERYONE should have been armed.
Mixing alcohol and firearms is stupid stupid stupid.
However, making sure only the bad guy is armed is even more stupid.
-
Read it on the New York Times. I believe it was an off duty police officer providing security. Of course you all think everyone should have been armed. What a great idea, mix booze with small caliber firearms.
Not everyone. Just the ones that choose to be, and that get the training.
-
Read it on the New York Times. I believe it was an off duty police officer providing security. Of course you all think everyone should have been armed. What a great idea, mix booze with small caliber firearms.
I can't speak for any state other than my own but while we can carry into a bar, we must abstain from alcohol consumption. Same with a restaurant. I frequent the latter, not so much the former. If I know I'm going to have an adult beverage the pistol stays at the house. It's pretty darn easy actually.
-
Not everyone. Just the ones that choose to be, and that get the training.
Following up my own post here.
I don't like the idea of gun-free zones (i.e. places where only the criminals are armed), but if there are to be any gun-free zones, I would say a bar would be one of them. But in that case, there needs to be sufficient armed presence to protect those people that have been disarmed.
Even in the wild west, many saloons made people check their weapons at the door. But the bartender often kept a sawed off under counter.
-
Read it on the New York Times. I believe it was an off duty police officer providing security. Of course you all think everyone should have been armed. What a great idea, mix booze with small caliber firearms.
Coming from a safe space academic, that is an expected overreaction. The reality is that trained, armed citizens are going to result in a far better result than a bunch of unarmed lemmings waiting to be slaughtered by the Muslim terrorists.
-
Coming from a safe space academic, that is an expected overreaction. The reality is that trained, armed citizens are going to result in a far better result than a bunch of unarmed lemmings waiting to be slaughtered by the Muslim terrorists.
-
Following up my own post here.
I don't like the idea of gun-free zones (i.e. places where only the criminals are armed), but if there are to be any gun-free zones, I would say a bar would be one of them. But in that case, there needs to be sufficient armed presence to protect those people that have been disarmed.
Even in the wild west, many saloons made people check their weapons at the door. But the bartender often kept a sawed off under counter.
If we apply the same circular logic used against gun measures, what's to stop a criminal from deciding to disobey the rule of the gun free zone at a bar? More importantly, what's to stop a small group of criminals from overtaking and subduing said "armed presence?"
We could play this game all day. At the end of the day, if someone (or a group) decides to conduct evil activities, said persons will find a way to do it. We could come up with as many alternatives as we like, but it's all just smoke and mirrors.
-
If we apply the same circular logic used against gun measures, what's to stop a criminal from deciding to disobey the rule of the gun free zone at a bar? More importantly, what's to stop a small group of criminals from overtaking and subduing said "armed presence?"
We could play this game all day. At the end of the day, if someone (or a group) decides to conduct evil activities, said persons will find a way to do it. We could come up with as many alternatives as we like, but it's all just smoke and mirrors.
You have a point. It wouldn't have stopped that guy that shot up the Dallas police dept. or Timothy McVeigh, or the Boston Marathon bombers. (Those last two didn't even use guns).
But I believe it would have stopped (or limited the damage from) those little shits that shot up the school, or the movie theater, or the Orlando night club.
Just like poverty, we will never eliminate crime. But there are steps we can take (or stop taking) to stop causing more of those things.
-
You have a point. It wouldn't have stopped that guy that shot up the Dallas police dept. or Timothy McVeigh, or the Boston Marathon bombers. (Those last two didn't even use guns).
But I believe it would have stopped (or limited the damage from) those little shits that shot up the school, or the movie theater, or the Orlando night club.
Just like poverty, we will never eliminate crime. But there are steps we can take (or stop taking) to stop causing more of those things.
I agree with you except about the part of stopping or limiting the damage done to Aurora or Orlando. Both those shooters died, and were kamikaze killers. They wanted to die and take as many bodies with them. You could put armed guards all over movie theaters and scare the shit out of patrons, and you still won't stop someone determined to create a body count.
You have to fight the issue strategically, not tactically.
-
I agree with you except about the part of stopping or limiting the damage done to Aurora or Orlando. Both those shooters died, and were kamikaze killers. They wanted to die and take as many bodies with them. You could put armed guards all over movie theaters and scare the shit out of patrons, and you still won't stop someone determined to create a body count.
You have to fight the issue strategically, not tactically.
Respectfully disagree Mark.
Tactical is exactly how you stop madmen like these shooters who are bent on destruction, strategy is too large a scale and too high a view. Someone with a gun who has the training and mental and emotional determination to act to save lives could have made a difference in almost any of the mass shootings.
The fact that so many are forced or choose to be unarmed sheep is the result of strategic thinking based on a couple false premises, e.g., laws will govern the lawless and that LEO's have an obligation to protect the innocent. Neither are true.
'Gimp
-
If we apply the same circular logic used against gun measures, what's to stop a criminal from deciding to disobey the rule of the gun free zone at a bar? More importantly, what's to stop a small group of criminals from overtaking and subduing said "armed presence?"
We could play this game all day. At the end of the day, if someone (or a group) decides to conduct evil activities, said persons will find a way to do it. We could come up with as many alternatives as we like, but it's all just smoke and mirrors.
What is to stop some aliens from overtaking and subduing an armed presence either? This is ridiculous. If a gun free zone gives you comfort, well good for you. If the chance of someone being armed bothers you, then don't go.
There's no smoke and mirrors about the CHANCE of an armed citizen making a difference. If you, Steingar, and others are looking at anything less than 100% chance of survival if an armed citizen is present as a failure, then you should be very happy. However, that measure is invalid - as it is about pretty much everything.
-
Respectfully disagree Mark.
Tactical is exactly how you stop madmen like these shooters who are bent on destruction, strategy is too large a scale and too high a view. Someone with a gun who has the training and mental and emotional determination to act to save lives could have made a difference in almost any of the mass shootings.
The fact that so many are forced or choose to be unarmed sheep is the result of strategic thinking based on a couple false premises, e.g., laws will govern the lawless and that LEO's have an obligation to protect the innocent. Neither are true.
'Gimp
Tactical is shooting the guy. Strategic is making him not want to start shooting in the first place.
My vote is on strategic.
A strategic option being discussed is trying to eliminate ownership of powerful weapons. I'm opposed to that because 1) there are more guns than illegal immigrants by an order of magnitude and we can't control the immigrants and 2) in the US, criminals who want guns will get them. Heck, our own government gave them to the drug cartels.
-
Tactical is shooting the guy. Strategic is making him not want to start shooting in the first place.
My vote is on strategic.
A strategic option being discussed is trying to eliminate ownership of powerful weapons. I'm opposed to that because 1) there are more guns than illegal immigrants by an order of magnitude and we can't control the immigrants and 2) in the US, criminals who want guns will get them. Heck, our own government gave them to the drug cartels.
The problem Brian is that strategic can only influence folks who are interested in complying.
That is why the the only tool in the strategic quiver is to limit the natural right to self-defense that is recognized in the Bill of Rights itself, namely to restrict the rights of law abiding citizens in a misguided attempt to limit access for people who by definition are not/will not obey the law (criminals).
The fact that killing is against the law, that killing cops is even 'more' against the law did nothing to prevent the shooter in Dallas. Nor did it stop the movie shooter, or the school shooters, etc.
No strategic action will prevent people like that from carrying out their plans, if one tool becomes unavailable they simply switch tools (fertilizer bombs, cars, knives, golf clubs, airplanes, etc.).
The tactical response is to disable/kill someone when they are attempting to do harm. There is no pre-crime division and if there were it would be terrifying.
Limiting the rights of the law-abiding is not the answer as can be seen by the difference in cases where there are armed responders immediately available (civilian or nearby LEO's) as compared to events that unfold over tens of minutes or hours.
'Gimp
-
Tactical is shooting the guy. Strategic is making him not want to start shooting in the first place.
My vote is on strategic.
A strategic option being discussed is trying to eliminate ownership of powerful weapons. I'm opposed to that because 1) there are more guns than illegal immigrants by an order of magnitude and we can't control the immigrants and 2) in the US, criminals who want guns will get them. Heck, our own government gave them to the drug cartels.
You need both. Strategy allowed the Boston Bombers to emigrate and radicalize; strategy let the San Bernardino shooter's wife into the country, and ignores his radicalization; strategy took the Orlando shooter off the FBI Watch List.
Tactics took them all down, after the strategy failed.
-
A strategic option being discussed is trying to eliminate ownership of powerful weapons.
I know that you said I'm opposed to that because . . .
so this is not aimed at you, but
Eliminating guns is not a strategic move. It is an attempt to look like you are doing something because you don't know how to solve the real problem, which is violent people being violent.
We need to zero in on the causes of violence. Some of it is genetic. Some people are just violent. We just have to deal with that.
But some violence is caused by outside influences, such as poverty, greed, discrimination, jealousy, etc... I think much of that could be cured by education, and by requiring able-bodied people to work, rather than giving them "government assistance" for not working. Even if that work is made-up stuff, like the old CCC camps.