Concealed weapon owner confronted Oregon mall shooter

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by aristobrat, Dec 16, 2012.

  1. aristobrat macrumors G5

    Oct 14, 2005

    Who knows if his actions had any affect on the outcome, but someone in the other thread wanted to know where the proverbial person 'with the concealed weapon' was.
  2. rhett7660 macrumors G4


    Jan 9, 2008
    Sunny, Southern California
    That part about knowing your background is huge. I have been taught this since day one. Excellent choice not to shoot since there was a possibility to hurt someone else.

    I say kudos to him.
  3. Happybunny macrumors 68000

    Sep 9, 2010
    So basically he did next to nothing, or am I missing something?
  4. lannister80 macrumors 6502


    Apr 7, 2009
    I guess it's showing that not all CCW people are crazy cowboys.
  5. Happybunny macrumors 68000

    Sep 9, 2010

    Don't understand.:eek:


    Sorry,Don't bother, I see it now Conceal Carry Weapon, just had a dim moment.:eek:
  6. SLC Flyfishing Suspended

    SLC Flyfishing

    Nov 19, 2007
    Portland, OR
    It's possible that if the shooter noticed that someone else was armed and ready, that he then decided that it was time to go ahead and kill himself as planned before someone else got to do it?

    The shooter then (presumably) didn't kill anyone else but himself, and shots from the CCW holder were not necessary.

    Nobody knows exactly though, and that's not the point. The point is that someone with a CCW was present, and decided to take action.

    The point is that because of our laws, there was at least a deterrent present, one that at the very least could have drawn fire and occupied the shooter's attention until police arrived (as happened in the 2007 Salt Lake City mall shooting).

    The point is, this guy was there, ready to intervene if necessary. And he realized that doing so initially wouldn't be safe and so he choose not to fire.

    Some people here have claimed that CCW holders would serve no purpose except to harm others in the crossfire and I think this is an excellent rebuttal to that claim.
  7. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Mar 22, 2010
    It's not as if we don't know they're "out there".

    And one day someone will stop a shooter .. that I'm sure is inevitable.

    The question IMO is whether on balance putting more concealed weapons in the hands of more people is a positive or a negative thing.
  8. Happybunny macrumors 68000

    Sep 9, 2010
    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.
  9. Rob.G macrumors 6502


    Jan 17, 2010
    I just completed my Oregon CCW training. There is a huge focus on paying attention to what you could hit if you miss. There's also a lot of instruction on when deadly force is authorized and when it isn't. This is why CCW holders will very rarely open fire.

    IMO the world would be a better place if many more people were armed. Right now I don't even have a handgun to conceal; I sold my Beretta 92FS because it was too big and heavy. I'm trying to decide between a Glock 37 and a Bersa Ultra-Compact, both in the .45 variety.

  10. anonymouslurker macrumors regular

    May 16, 2012
    How do you know that wasn't the case here?
  11. Happybunny macrumors 68000

    Sep 9, 2010
    We don't but we only have his word for it. In the military you cannot call yourself a hero, and claim a medal, others have to do that.
    I would be more interested if there were more independent people pushing for this persons hero status.

    Don't get me wrong, I would love to see one of these spree killers taken out. But as yet I don't think that there is enough evidence to say this was the one.
  12. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Mar 22, 2010
    I have to disagree.

    I think the American society would be a better place if more people were not armed.

    Just as the world would be a better place with fewer nuclear bombs.

    Putting life-threatening devices in the hands of more people makes no sense to me.
  13. ericrwalker macrumors 68030


    Oct 8, 2008
    Albany, NY
    If you have the money, why not get both? I say the more the merrier.
  14. anonymouslurker macrumors regular

    May 16, 2012
    How can you have evidence of the absence of something?

    i.e. How can you say that the shooter would have killed more, had he not seen someone else with a gun?

    I don't think it will be a clear link to people until someone on a shooting spree is actually taken down by someone with a CCW in the middle of their rampage, but that totally disregards the impact of the possible presence of another armed person giving the shooter pause.
  15. Happybunny macrumors 68000

    Sep 9, 2010
    I state it again we only have his word for any of this, that in my book is not enough to make him a hero.
  16. aristobrat thread starter macrumors G5

    Oct 14, 2005
    FWIW, I started the thread as a response to this particular post, where IMO the poster really didn't think there was one "out there", therefore concluding that concealed carry weapons do not ever help.
  17. anonymouslurker macrumors regular

    May 16, 2012
    You are the only one who has mentioned the word "hero." It's not about that at all.

    My point is that the presence of another armed person may (or may not) have reduced the number of victims from what it possibly could have been, had there not been another armed person.
  18. zhenya macrumors 603


    Jan 6, 2005
    I have a friend through business who was special forces in the military, runs his own training programs for law enforcement, and continues as a special consultant to the military. With all that said, even he is generally against the idea of people firing back in these kinds of situations. In all of his experience in combat zones around the world, he has learned that very, very few people, even those with extensive training, can actually pull off an accurate shot under stress.

    Arming more and more people as a deterrent to these kind of events is exactly the opposite of what needs to happen.
  19. aristobrat thread starter macrumors G5

    Oct 14, 2005
    Which is fine, as he doesn't want the attention nor the title.
  20. barkomatic macrumors 68040

    Aug 8, 2008
    What would have been even better is if *neither* the shooter nor the CCW holder were allowed to have weapons. Then, there would be no weapons at the mall which is the preferred state in my opinion.

    Besides, if the CCW holder had indeed fired his weapon, he might have ended up killed by the cops or sitting in jail.
  21. SLC Flyfishing, Dec 17, 2012
    Last edited: Dec 17, 2012

    SLC Flyfishing Suspended

    SLC Flyfishing

    Nov 19, 2007
    Portland, OR
    Does this qualify?

    I was working the trauma bay that night and got two of the survivors. Not a pretty sight.

    This police officer had a weapon with him (in direct violation of the mall's no-guns policy I might add) and was able to engage the shooter and draw his fire until the first on-duty police officer arrived. Together they occupied the shooter until SWAT arrived and killed the shooter.

    This kid had a pistol grip shotgun (which was later determined to have been obtained illegally, and the seller prosecuted), as well as a handgun. He also had a backpack full of shotgun shells. Had nobody been there to intervene the death toll would undoubtedly been much higher.

    So there you have it. Proof that CCW can in fact be of benefit in these situations.

    I don't have a CCW permit, nor do I plan on getting one by the way. But I do see their value, in situations like this.
  22. Menel macrumors 603


    Aug 4, 2011
    The US could disband all of ours.

    Leave the remaining few in the hands of the Russians and Iranians.

    Good plan?


    So draft a law that says no killing people with firearms in malls. I'm sure that will solve it.
  23. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Mar 22, 2010
    Are you afraid that Russia or Iran might send an invading armada across the Atlantic ocean because American citizens don't have guns?

  24. prostuff1 macrumors 65816


    Jul 29, 2005
    Don't step into the kawoosh...
    Unless a person is so completely out of tune with there surroundings they will always pause for at least a second when they see a gun pointed in there direction.

    I have quite a few teacher friends that are horrified by what happened in Conn. and of course the discussion moved to CCW permits, training and the like.

    A few of the teachers were hesitant and some would very much appreciate the ability to CC in there classroom and on school premises.

    One of the teachers some something to the effect of:
    I will say this...if I was allowed to carry in the classroom, the only thing that I would feel as I saw scum like that in my sights would be recoil!

    A little dark but very much to the point, and something I happen to agree with.

    One of the reports i read was of a 27 year old teacher that locked her kids in a closet or something and when the shooter came by told him they were in the gym. He shoot her and moved on. She saved all those kids lives and she is a hero! I can't help but wonder what would have happened and if she would still be alive had she been able to defend herself and/or kill the gunman.
  25. CalWizrd Suspended


    Jun 21, 2011
    NYC/Raleigh, NC
    That is an excellent point.

Share This Page