Concealed weapon owner confronted Oregon mall shooter

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by thekev

... 5.6% could mean running into many people who carry guns in public, depending upon your location.

Likewise it could mean running into few or no people who carry guns in public, depending upon your location.

I'm glad we settled that.

[Rooskibar03]

Originally Posted by Happybunny

Thank you for your input.

I do think that you will make your point, when and if a CCW ever does stop a major shooting spree.

IIRC both the 2006 Colorado Spring church shooting and the August Sikh temple shooting were both ended by civilians with firearms.

It happens more time then we will ever know, not just mass shootings but one on ones as well.

[chown33]

Originally Posted by Rooskibar03

IIRC both the 2006 Colorado Spring church shooting and the August Sikh temple shooting were both ended by civilians with firearms.

If you mean this incident in 2007:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Co...Life_shootings

On Sunday, December 9, 2007, at about 1 p.m. Murray, armed with a semi-automatic rifle and two pistols, entered the foyer of the New Life Church in Colorado Springs and fatally shot two and wounded three others before himself being shot and wounded by Jeanne Assam, a former sworn Minneapolis police officer and a church member acting as security.
...
At this point, Assam opened fire on Murray with her personally owned concealed weapon. Police say that after suffering multiple hits from Assam's gun, Murray fatally shot himself.

Personally, I wouldn't consider a former police officer to be a civilian in terms of training and experience. YMMV.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiscons...emple_shooting

The gunman, Wade Michael Page, a white supremacist, shot several people of the Sikh faith at the temple, and also a responding police officer. After being shot in the stomach by another officer, Page fatally shot himself in the head.

I see nothing about any armed civilians at all.

FWIW, it was remarkably easy to find these two articles and read the details.

[Rooskibar03]

Well that's what happens when posting from a phone on the fly. That said a "former" sworn PO is no long a active officer, which is then considered a civilian.

So lets try round two. Pearl High School shooting in 97. Shooting was stopped by principle who retrieved his weapon from the car and was able to stop the shooter.

And for reference this time: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl...chool_shooting

Originally Posted by chown33

If you mean this incident in 2007:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Co...Life_shootings

On Sunday, December 9, 2007, at about 1 p.m. Murray, armed with a semi-automatic rifle and two pistols, entered the foyer of the New Life Church in Colorado Springs and fatally shot two and wounded three others before himself being shot and wounded by Jeanne Assam, a former sworn Minneapolis police officer and a church member acting as security.
...
At this point, Assam opened fire on Murray with her personally owned concealed weapon. Police say that after suffering multiple hits from Assam's gun, Murray fatally shot himself.

Personally, I wouldn't consider a former police officer to be a civilian in terms of training and experience. YMMV.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiscons...emple_shooting

The gunman, Wade Michael Page, a white supremacist, shot several people of the Sikh faith at the temple, and also a responding police officer. After being shot in the stomach by another officer, Page fatally shot himself in the head.

I see nothing about any armed civilians at all.

FWIW, it was remarkably easy to find these two articles and read the details.

[mrkramer]

Originally Posted by Rooskibar03

So lets try round two. Pearl High School shooting in 97. Shooting was stopped by principle who retrieved his weapon from the car and was able to stop the shooter.

While the principle did get a gun from looking through the sources for the wikipedia article you linked it looks like the gun wasn't all of what stopped him, and by the time the principal stopped him he was already running away so it was over. And since he was running away and had already killed the person he wanted to I doubt any lives were saved by it.

Woodham was fleeing from the high school when an assistant principal rammed his car into Woodham's mother's vehicle to stop him.

http://www.cnn.com/US/9710/02/miss.shooting.folo/

[NickZac]

Originally Posted by Happybunny

Thank you for your input.

I do think that you will make your point, when and if a CCW ever does stop a major shooting spree.

You're telling me you don't believe this person ended the incident? In another recent shooting, the shooter turned the gun on himself the moment he realized other people with guns had arrived.

It's also a good example of good firearms training in action. The guy was able to conceptualize the risks of hitting a bystander through a ricochet, miss, or overpenetration, and so they held fire. If he had fired and hit the shooter but also another civilian, everyone on this forum would be going bat crazy. But he didn't and that is because firearms education works. His presence was, in itself, enough to contribute to the end.

[Happybunny]

Originally Posted by Rooskibar03

IIRC both the 2006 Colorado Spring church shooting and the August Sikh temple shooting were both ended by civilians with firearms.

It happens more time then we will ever know, not just mass shootings but one on ones as well.

Originally Posted by NickZac

You're telling me you don't believe this person ended the incident? In another recent shooting, the shooter turned the gun on himself the moment he realized other people with guns had arrived.

It's also a good example of good firearms training in action. The guy was able to conceptualize the risks of hitting a bystander through a ricochet, miss, or overpenetration, and so they held fire. If he had fired and hit the shooter but also another civilian, everyone on this forum would be going bat crazy. But he didn't and that is because firearms education works. His presence was, in itself, enough to contribute to the end.

To you both My answer was given in post 44.

[MadeTheSwitch]

Originally Posted by NickZac

You're telling me you don't believe this person ended the incident? In another recent shooting, the shooter turned the gun on himself the moment he realized other people with guns had arrived.

Why? I know we aren't dealing with rational people in these situations, but still I would like to understand the whole "Oh no..that person has a gun, I might get shot, so I will.....um....shoot myself first!! Yeah, that'll solve the problem". I don't understand this at all...it makes even less sense then the actual shootings to begin with. Really strange.

[CalWizrd]

Originally Posted by MadeTheSwitch

...it makes even less sense then the actual shootings to begin with. Really strange.

Any individuals who are driven by a compulsion to shoot children, mall shoppers, postal workers, day traders, or anyone else, clearly is acting through thought processes that we will probably never understand. Why they would take any particular action is most likely incomprehensible to a rational thinker.

[prostuff1]

Originally Posted by MadeTheSwitch

Why? I know we aren't dealing with rational people in these situations, but still I would like to understand the whole "Oh no..that person has a gun, I might get shot, so I will.....um....shoot myself first!! Yeah, that'll solve the problem". I don't understand this at all...it makes even less sense then the actual shootings to begin with. Really strange.

You just tried to rationally think through a process that is coming from a disturbed and irrational mind.

If anything the irrational person is likely thinking that they would rather go out on "their terms" and not be killed by a civilian. They would rather do it themselves or have a cop do it.

Suicide by cop is not rational either but it happens.

[NickZac]

Originally Posted by MadeTheSwitch

Why? I know we aren't dealing with rational people in these situations, but still I would like to understand the whole "Oh no..that person has a gun, I might get shot, so I will.....um....shoot myself first!! Yeah, that'll solve the problem". I don't understand this at all...it makes even less sense then the actual shootings to begin with. Really strange.

Can you explain to me why someone would kill children? I can’t. But it has been established that the shooter shot himself upon learning of the arrival of first responders despite having enough ammo to kill everyone in that school. Several other shootings have ended in this suicide upon the arrival of first responders despite the shooters having had significant ammunition remaining.

[Mac'nCheese]

Originally Posted by NickZac

Can you explain to me why someone would kill children? I can’t. But it has been established that the shooter shot himself upon learning of the arrival of first responders despite having enough ammo to kill everyone in that school. Several other shootings have ended in this suicide upon the arrival of first responders despite the shooters having had significant ammunition remaining.

I wonder if anyone has any insight as to why this happens. Why give up then and kill yourself? Don't they want to keep going, killing as many as possible, before going down in a blaze of glory? Especially, since now they get to shoot at the man, so to speak.

[zhenya]

Originally Posted by NickZac

Can you explain to me why someone would kill children? I can’t. But it has been established that the shooter shot himself upon learning of the arrival of first responders despite having enough ammo to kill everyone in that school. Several other shootings have ended in this suicide upon the arrival of first responders despite the shooters having had significant ammunition remaining.

I think this leads directly into the real issue which is that fundamentally most criminals are a) not that sharp and b) basically cowards. This is why I think real gun control will actually help. Make guns relatively difficult to attain, and people of this nature by and large wont be able to jump through the hoops necessary to get them. We know that most crimes are crimes of opportunity. If guns are difficult (but not impossible) to get their hands on, it takes away that ease of opportunity for many would-be killers. This is the basic model that most of the rest of the world uses, and it basically works.

[mrkramer]

Originally Posted by Mac'nCheese

I wonder if anyone has any insight as to why this happens. Why give up then and kill yourself? Don't they want to keep going, killing as many as possible, before going down in a blaze of glory? Especially, since now they get to shoot at the man, so to speak.

My guess is that they want to die, and they are worried that the cops will shoot to wound instead of kill, and then they'll be stuck in prison for life. It doesn't make a lot of sense, but it's the only idea I can come up with that at least makes some sense...

[NickZac]

Originally Posted by Mac'nCheese

I wonder if anyone has any insight as to why this happens. Why give up then and kill yourself? Don't they want to keep going, killing as many as possible, before going down in a blaze of glory? Especially, since now they get to shoot at the man, so to speak.

I think part of it may be to deny the world of 'bringing forth justice'...I use the ''s because what justice is varies but I believe it is partially that. For people who suffer from borderline personality disorder, another component is 'control'. Perhaps also the belief if they do it themselves it would be less painful.

Originally Posted by zhenya

I think this leads directly into the real issue which is that fundamentally most criminals are a) not that sharp and b) basically cowards. This is why I think real gun control will actually help. Make guns relatively difficult to attain, and people of this nature by and large wont be able to jump through the hoops necessary to get them. We know that most crimes are crimes of opportunity. If guns are difficult (but not impossible) to get their hands on, it takes away that ease of opportunity for many would-be killers. This is the basic model that most of the rest of the world uses, and it basically works.

I would disagree. The people in these shootings are by no means stupid. On the contrary, they are almost methodical. Many of these shootings were planned long in advance and laid out very precisely. I do not think limiting access would necessarily deter them. Perhaps your average petty criminal, but not these people.

[SeanR1]

Originally Posted by Sydde

He could be embellishing the story just because he wants to bolster support for CCW by saying that it works as a deterrent.

Why would he need to bolster support for CCW? It is already law where he lives and he has one.

[NickZac]

Originally Posted by Happybunny

To you both My answer was given in post 44.

This unilateral reasoning is partly why the situation is defined by two extremes unwilling to compromise. The 'let's think of every way possible to discredit any stories that show guns are sometimes used in self defense' line of reasoning makes the situation worse, not better.

[Happybunny]

Originally Posted by NickZac

This unilateral reasoning is partly why the situation is defined by two extremes unwilling to compromise. The 'let's think of every way possible to discredit any stories that show guns are sometimes used in self defense' line of reasoning makes the situation worse, not better.

The only point I will concede is that he didn't make it any worse.

I'm also just to jaded to believe stories that are based on only one eyewitness who is also the story teller.
The woman who wasn't there comes to mind.
http://www.nydailynews.com/entertain...icle-1.1048845

[elistan]

Originally Posted by Rooskibar03

Well that's what happens when posting from a phone on the fly. That said a "former" sworn PO is no long a active officer, which is then considered a civilian.

So lets try round two. Pearl High School shooting in 97. Shooting was stopped by principle who retrieved his weapon from the car and was able to stop the shooter.

And for reference this time: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl...chool_shooting

For what it's worth in the context of a discussion of armed civilians stopping shooters, the Wikipedia article states that the school principle, Joel Myrick, is a US Army Reserve commander.

[Lord Blackadder]

Why are we relying on "good samaritans" with CCWs to curb gun violence? To me, that is unsound reasoning. Essentially this is arguing that as long as most people in the US are skilled shooters and go everywhere armed, we will be able to gun down the criminals before they can do too much damage. What this is doing is vastly increasing the likelihood of firefights on our streets, in our malls and schools and every other public place. I can't support that.