How to stop a gunman.....?

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

04-20-2007, 02:20 PM
DougW

Quote:

Originally Posted by Van_skier

I remember at the time of the Ecole Polytechnique shooting (14 dead) my mom (who worked there, but was out of the building at the time) was puzzled as to how nobody tried to stop the guy. Strangely enough, I don't recall my dad saying anything similar (he's a prof there, and I think he might have been in the building at the time).

When I read through the detailed story of what happened on wiki a few days ago (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89c...ique_massacre: note: this is a detailed account so it's chilling to say the least) it does seem like someone could have maybe stopped him (he went through 3 different floors and his gun failed to fire at one point, so he needed to reload). However, I do realize that thinking someone could have stopped him is clouded by the fact that I'm looking at the story as an outsider, after it happened, so I have all the details at my disposal.
The reality is, when crazy events like this happen, I can assume the people that are caught in the crossfire have no details about what is going on other than the fact there's a guy unloading a gun. They don't know his full intentions, how many rounds he has left, where he's headed next etc... I can also imagine that actions and responses are clouded by fear and the natural human response is to flee...
Regular civilians have no training to deal with events like these or to "stop a gunman"
That's where police training comes in to enable cops to deal with gunmen. Aside from the fact they are armed and where protection, cops are trained to deal with the stress and evaluate the details of the situation properly. They are also highly trained in the use of their weapons.

It's very disturbing to me that many people seem to think that arming civilians is the answer to prevent this kind of event. It goes to show the cultural gap in terms of guns is huge between Canada and the US, because I don't recall many people thinking that if others were armed, the massacre at Poly could have been prevented. I walked passed the memorial of the 14 women everyday for over 2 years, but I never once thought that if others were armed, they would still be alive...

Very interesting point. Actually the Montreal shooting started a movement that required the registration of all long guns. Per capita Canada has more long guns that the states. Has always been hard to get a hand gun in Canada. Gun registration divided the country ( well not huge issue) between east west and rural /urban. Really in Canada the only real opponents to gun control are rural westerners.
04-20-2007, 02:20 PM
PNWbrit

Quote:

Originally Posted by Free Range Lobster

Do you fucking pay any attention at fucking all?

Based solely on his assessment of one of the very nicest guys around here

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crass3000

Oh Natty... Congratulations on being one of the three biggest douchenozzles on the internet.

I'd say no.
04-20-2007, 02:22 PM
Crass3000

Quote:

Originally Posted by hemas

Can I please have some of those pills you've been eating, my post-op supply of Voltaren seems to be running a bit low...

Because you surely must be on some really strong meds, if you missed about the whole world condemn 9/11... and yes, it was in the news and papers. And yep, even muslims were condemning it (heck, even Gadaffi in Syria condemned it, and a few years ago, he was on your countries watch-list).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Free Range Lobster

Thats funny, quite a few large muslim groups and spokesmen spoke out against 9/11.

Do you fucking pay any attention at fucking all?

Might I suggest you read this book:

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/boo...43289689&itm=3

Certainly the book as a whole touches on alot of subjects but it also touches on the fact that Muslims either didn't care or were more likely too scared to say much even after 9/11.

Seriously check it out. I heard the author talk on Minnesota Pulic Radio (how bad could it be). I can't imagine you not liking the book. It touches on women's rights and lots of other things.
04-20-2007, 02:25 PM
Free Range Lobster

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crass3000

Certainly the book as a whole touches on alotof subjects but it also touches on the fact that Muslims either didn't care or were more likely too scared to say much even after 9/11.

Because... One book obviously speaks against about 20+ different groups that were listed in the links I just posted.

You must be in politics.
04-20-2007, 02:25 PM
Crass3000

Quote:

Originally Posted by PNWbrit

Based solely on his assessment of one of the very nicest guys around here

I'd say no.

Well we haven't agreed on much up until now so I guess that isn't much of a shock.
04-20-2007, 02:25 PM
dipstik

This thread is really sad, from almost every angle.
04-20-2007, 02:28 PM
Crass3000

Quote:

Originally Posted by Free Range Lobster

Because... One book obviously speaks against about 20+ different groups that were listed in the links I just posted.

You must be in politics.

No my point was that it was a good book. It will probably refute some of your points and back up some of your others. It's sincerely a good book about the bad side of Islam.
04-20-2007, 02:30 PM
Free Range Lobster

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crass3000

No my point was that it was a good book. It will probably refute some of your points and back up some of your others. It's sincerely a good book about the bad side of Islam.

And Rashid Ahmed along with VS Naipaul both wrote MANY books about the Middle East and SE Asia showing BOTH the good side AND bad side of Islam.

Do you even have a point?

Oh right, you had facts shoved in your face now you have to divert in another direction. Carry on.
04-20-2007, 02:31 PM
Crass3000

Quote:

Originally Posted by hemas

Mebbe Fox doesn't tell the whole truth...

The funny thing is that all you people who say bad things about the Rightwing media is that you have probably never listened to it. I can honestly say that I listen to both sides to get as much information as I can. Can you honestly say you do? I hope so cause every source picks and chooses facts to support their slant.
04-20-2007, 02:33 PM
hemas

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crass3000

The funny thing is that all you people who say bad things about the Rightwing media is that you have probably never listened to it. I can honestly say that I listen to both sides to get as much information as I can. Can you honestly say you do? I hope so cause every source picks and chooses facts to support their slant.

Listen, watch... nope. But read, yes still they're news seems often rather funny when I compare them to the headlines from BCC, CNN, Reuters and a few others at the same time.
04-20-2007, 02:34 PM
Crass3000

Quote:

Originally Posted by Free Range Lobster

And Rashid Ahmed along with VS Naipaul both wrote MANY books about the Middle East and SE Asia showing BOTH the good side AND bad side of Islam.

Do you even have a point?

Oh right, you had facts shoved in your face now you have to divert in another direction. Carry on.

No my point was that the organizations you put forward are only a tiny fraction of the Muslim population in the US -- and that their outcry is often too little, too late. They typically don't say much in general.

The only Muslims I saw around 9/11 were in my engineering classes and they seemed to think it was a pretty cool thing that happened.
04-20-2007, 02:35 PM
Jack Burton

"challenge him to a ski off?"

or travel with Wang Chee and Egg Shen, they can handle Lo Pan.
04-20-2007, 02:36 PM
Free Range Lobster

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crass3000

The only Muslims I saw around 9/11 were in my engineering classes and they seemed to think it was a pretty cool thing that happened.

This I'll easily call bullshit on.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack Burton

"challenge him to a ski off?"

or travel with Wang Chee and Egg Shen, they can handle Lo Pan.

Because you know what Jack Burton always says...
04-20-2007, 02:36 PM
Crass3000

Quote:

Originally Posted by hemas

Listen, watch... nope. But read, yes still they're news seems often rather funny when I compare them to the headlines from BCC, CNN, Reuters and a few others at the same time.

But you really have to drink the Rush, Sean Hannity Kool-aid to really get an idea of some of the information out there. I'm not saying they are the only people who bring important facts to light -- but they bring ALOT of facts to light that you will never see anywhere else in the media.
04-20-2007, 02:36 PM
Tippster

As far as CCW goes, Virginia is one of the easiest states to obtain a permit:

Quote:

No police discretion, no training required, reciprocity

http://www.bradycampaign.org/legisla...tate.php?st=va

If I was the shooter I would have shot a couple people first, then waited for any idiot to look like they're fumbling for a weapon and shoot them, take their weapon, and shoot even more people.

Do you honeslty think that a 20yo kid crapping his pants is going to have the presence of mind to be able to draw, aim, and fire effectively before getting shot? Cho was mentally ready to kill... what was described to us by an FBI agent and combat veteran as "in the moment." He wasn't considering his actions, he was on auto-pilot. There could have been 10 guys with guns in those rooms - according to folks who know how this shit goes down they would have been killed and their weapons replenished his cache.

What amazes me is the suggestion that a couple of armed kids would have been preferable to more armed (and trained) Campus cops patrolling buildings.
04-20-2007, 02:37 PM
bklyn

If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

Can something exist without being perceived?

The most immediate philosophical topic that the riddle introduces, involves the existence of the tree (and its sound) outside of human perception. If no one is around to see, hear, touch or smell the tree, how could its existence occur? What is it to say that it exists when such an existence avoids all knowing? George Berkeley in the 18th century developed subjective idealism, a metaphysical theory to respond to these questions, coined famously as "to be is to be perceived".
04-20-2007, 02:38 PM
Crass3000

Quote:

Originally Posted by Free Range Lobster

This I'll easily call bullshit on.

Because you know what Jack Burton always says...

Sorry I was there -- you weren't. This was a graduate level class at the University of Minnesota. Do I really have a reason to lie. Do you really think that you're approval or believing me is important? (Sorry got to head home -- already after quitting time)
04-20-2007, 02:39 PM
Free Range Lobster

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crass3000

Do I really have a reason to lie. Do you really think that you're approval or believing me is important? (Sorry got to head home -- already after quitting time)

Yes, you do have reason, to cause shit and get off on getting a rise out of people.
04-20-2007, 02:41 PM
zion zig zag

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tippster

There could have been 10 guys with guns in those rooms - according to folks who know how this shit goes down they would have been killed and their weapons replenished his cache.

Congratulations, you've drawn me out.

Political beliefs aside, do you really believe that? One of the dumber things you've ever said if so.
04-20-2007, 02:41 PM
hemas

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tippster

What amazes me is the suggestion that a couple of armed kids would have been preferable to more armed (and trained) Campus cops patrolling buildings.

Bingo, trained armed personel patrolling and stationed in the campus... but now, I presume that someone would start bitching about Big Brother and the government taking away your freedoms (most of which you have already given).

As to listen to Rush et. al..... well I have to listen enough shite during the day, that I see no point in listening to another douchebag spew hatred and vile things on stuff he know nothing about.
04-20-2007, 02:43 PM
Free Range Lobster

Break out the metal detectors and paramilitary!
PS VA Tech anyone?

And just to finish off the crasshole discussion.
Rory Stewart, an outsider, walked completely across the Middle East and Southeast Asia. He strangely enough, is still alive. And he did it post 9/11.

Quote:

Originally Posted by flykdog

Congratulations, you've drawn me out.

Political beliefs aside, do you really believe that? One of the dumber things you've ever said if so.

Considering the people that Tipps knows know more than you do? I'd hedge my bets on his statement against yours.
04-20-2007, 02:43 PM
spook

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crass3000

The only Muslims I saw around 9/11 were in my engineering classes and they seemed to think it was a pretty cool thing that happened.

i'm sure there is a wonderfully entertaining explanation of this conclusion.

you, sir, are a disgrace to spook haters everywhere.
04-20-2007, 02:44 PM
natty dread

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crass3000

But you really have to drink the Rush, Sean Hannity Kool-aid to really get an idea of some of the information out there. I'm not saying they are the only people who bring important facts to light -- but they bring ALOT of facts to light that you will never see anywhere else in the media.

I am speechless.^^

OK I'm done--thanks for the link tracy. :D
04-20-2007, 02:45 PM
P_McPoser

Hey spook , see how no one ever quotes or reponds to you? Take the hint moron.

"
This message is hidden because spook is on your ignore list.
"
04-20-2007, 02:47 PM
Bong Hits For the Baby Steezus

Peace, love, and 420
04-20-2007, 02:47 PM
hemas

Quote:

Originally Posted by flykdog

Congratulations, you've drawn me out.

Political beliefs aside, do you really believe that? One of the dumber things you've ever said if so.

Psst. have you ever watched a gun from the wrong end?

I haven't in a real life situation... but did so, in a training mission during my military service... Both were armed with a assault-rifle, very much similar to AK-74 (AK-47's updated version), with blanks and a laser system both on the gun and on your vest & helmet. And guess what, we both wasted about 10 rounds and neither of us hit each other (less than 30 feet apart in really enclosed ravine). Sure, I ain't the best army-guy, but I'd take a guess that most would do even worse (at least those that none of such training). So yeah, Tipp has a huge point.
04-20-2007, 02:48 PM
spook

Quote:

Originally Posted by P_McPoser

Hey spook , see how no one ever quotes or reponds to you? Take the hint moron.

"
This message is hidden because spook is on your ignore list.
"

are you kidding? and miss the entertainment of having people who have me on ignore respond to posts they can't read?

it doesn't get much better than this.
04-20-2007, 02:58 PM
zion zig zag

Quote:

Originally Posted by hemas

Psst. have you ever watched a gun from the wrong end?

I haven't in a real life situation... but did so, in a training mission during my military service... Both were armed with a assault-rifle, very much similar to AK-74 (AK-47's updated version), with blanks and a laser system both on the gun and on your vest & helmet. And guess what, we both wasted about 10 rounds and neither of us hit each other (less than 30 feet apart in really enclosed ravine). Sure, I ain't the best army-guy, but I'd take a guess that most would do even worse (at least those that none of such training). So yeah, Tipp has a huge point.

You're a horrible shot. 10 guys, he can't shoot all of them at once, somebody has plenty of time to aim.
04-20-2007, 03:03 PM
Tippster

Quote:

Originally Posted by flykdog

Congratulations, you've drawn me out.

Political beliefs aside, do you really believe that? One of the dumber things you've ever said if so.

Sorry to lower the bar, flyk but yes - that is what I believe and I am not alone. See the rest of my post. I also did not mean to insinuate that all 10 were possibly in the same room....
04-20-2007, 03:03 PM
Nuthon

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damian Sanders

(This is a serious thread about a serious subject, so please show it the respect it deserves)

If put in a situation like that, I probably wouldn't have been able to do anything either, or have known what to do.....a very tough situation. In my daily life, I'm not in particular danger from crime (muggings, etc), nor a likely target, and I don't go around fighting people or shooting guns. Haven't been in a fight since high school, or shot a gun in over 10 years (only once). So, basicly I have no clue.

Thanks.

I personally tend to think that most random shootings are done by individuals who have very little or no real experience with firearms. With this thought in mind I'm sure that AIM comes into play. Reading a lot of the witness stories it sounded like most of the casualties were people lying on the ground. Not moving. I think the safer thing to do would be to run in a straffeing or zig zag motion towards or away from the shooter (depending on size of cahones). A moving target is almost impossible to get a clean kill. Unless one was experienced in shooting moving targets at close range. (police, military, security training)
04-20-2007, 03:04 PM
hemas

Quote:

Originally Posted by flykdog

You're a horrible shot. 10 guys, he can't shoot all of them at once, somebody has plenty of time to aim.

Nope, not terrible... But I ain't a hunter, so most of not the best on moving targets... But the point is surprice, I didn't know he was there, nor did he know that I was there.

And like Tipp said, most peeps would just freeze... Even most that are trained to deal in such situations.

Oh, and as many have already pointed out... By adding even more guns, sure the death-toll of a single incident would be pretty low (a few dead plus most likely the perpetrator). But the cumulative death-toll would climb a lot higher (some drunken 20 year old, has a small brawl of a chick, get a fist to the face, and proceeds to shoot the guy with his 9mm in anger).
04-20-2007, 03:05 PM
Nuthon

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nuthon

I think the safer thing to do would be to run in a straffeing or zig zag motion towards or away from the shooter (depending on size of cahones).

not advisable if suspect has an automatic weapon & or shotgun
04-20-2007, 03:10 PM
DougW

Quote:

Originally Posted by hemas

Psst. have you ever watched a gun from the wrong end?

I haven't in a real life situation... but did so, in a training mission during my military service... Both were armed with a assault-rifle, very much similar to AK-74 (AK-47's updated version), with blanks and a laser system both on the gun and on your vest & helmet. And guess what, we both wasted about 10 rounds and neither of us hit each other (less than 30 feet apart in really enclosed ravine). Sure, I ain't the best army-guy, but I'd take a guess that most would do even worse (at least those that none of such training). So yeah, Tipp has a huge point.

So you were aiming? All I know is from not to great of a distance I found it hard to hit a target aiming with a handgun. I'm a far shot with rifle. Submachine gun , aiming can hit fine from the hip nobody could hit the target. So it doesn't work like in the movies.
04-20-2007, 03:17 PM
tigerstripe40

Quote:

Originally Posted by hemas

But the cumulative death-toll would climb a lot higher (some drunken 20 year old, has a small brawl of a chick, get a fist to the face, and proceeds to shoot the guy with his 9mm in anger).

That's a self responsibility issue.
If you can't control yourself when drunk, you have 2 options:

a. You don't drink.
b. you don't own a gun.

If someone gets drunk and shoots someone in the face in anger, then that person needs to go to prison for a GOOD LONG TIME. I don't believe you should be able to blame the alcohol or the gun for your actions no matter what.

Edit:

As far as the Virginia Tech thing goes, how 'bout the other extreme.
If everyone who is legally able to, was required by law to carry a hand gun, would Virginia Tech, Columbine, or anything else like that have happened?

Personally, I doubt it.
04-20-2007, 03:19 PM
hemas

Quote:

Originally Posted by DougW

So you were aiming? All I know is from not to great of a distance I found it hard to hit a target aiming with a handgun. I'm a far shot with rifle. Submachine gun , aiming can hit fine from the hip nobody could hit the target. So it doesn't work like in the movies.

Sort of, not really time to aim per se... Sure I was pointing the gun in his general direction (as he was, on me) and shooting short bursts, while trying to get behind some cover (again, he was doing the same). After reviewing the data, neither even "hit" within 30 cm of each other (the system records these so-called near hits, and then actual hits). So yeah, it actually doesn't work like in the movies, unless you're really good and/or lucky.

But to be fair, that would have been an ideal situation for a shotgun (relatively short distance and also rather closed space).

But I did drop a guy from ~50m away after I had made my escape from the previous situation...

Oh, and all this was happening in a rather tight forest with limited visibility.

BTW. raiding and enemy trench with and assault-rifle and flash grenades in a team of 3 (me being on the point quite a few time) was a hoot... but getting a teargas grenade in the bunker while we were sleeping wasn't.
04-20-2007, 03:28 PM
hemas

Quote:

Originally Posted by tigerstripe40

As far as the Virginia Tech thing goes, how 'bout the other extreme.
If everyone who is legally able to, was required by law to carry a hand gun, would Virginia Tech, Columbine, or anything else like that have happened?

Personally, I doubt it.

1st issue, you're correct... As for the quoted part... I'm pretty certain it would still have happened, but the death-toll would have been smaller.

Yet again, having a gun doesn't make you a Hollywood action hero... When people are faced with unexpected situations, they often either freeze or resort to learned and trained traits (aka. autopilot)... and sadly very few peeps are trained to handle such a situation as Columbine or Va Tech, even though many think they would do such and such...

After all, both the guys from Columbine and this guy from Va Tech, knew that in the end they would die... All they wanted was to cause as much of an uprising as possible and make it to the news.
04-20-2007, 06:18 PM
Jer

I'd hide behind Spook/PNWBrit/TruckeeLocal/Hemmas/etc.
04-20-2007, 06:48 PM
truckeelocal

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jer

I'd hide behind Spook/PNWBrit/TruckeeLocal/Hemmas/etc.

This is a thread about who'd do the dumbest, most unexpected move on a guy with two guns. I'm happy to be in the above list compared to some of the alternatives presented here.
04-20-2007, 06:56 PM
Jer

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trackhead

For the record...........
I'm for no gun control.
I think partial birth abortion is wrong.
I hate George Bush, but can't stand the Democratic party.
I think socialized health care will never work.
Big oil is not as evil as Americans greed and selfishness. I am greedy and selfish.

Wanna hang out?
04-20-2007, 08:07 PM
Spats

Quote:

Originally Posted by hemas

Oh, and as many have already pointed out... By adding even more guns, sure the death-toll of a single incident would be pretty low (a few dead plus most likely the perpetrator). But the cumulative death-toll would climb a lot higher (some drunken 20 year old, has a small brawl of a chick, get a fist to the face, and proceeds to shoot the guy with his 9mm in anger).

Nice story, but it's wrong. The statistics indicate otherwise.

There is one state in the entire USA which allows unrestricted concealed carry. This means that anyone can carry a concealed handgun, with no permits required. Guess which state?

Vermont.
http://www.packing.org/state/vermont/

Vermont has the second lowest violent crime rate in the country.
http://www.census.gov/statab/ranks/rank21.html

Let's look at the other states. There is a concept called "shall-issue" for concealed weapons. It means that unless you are a convicted felon or fail one of the other objective criteria, the state must issue you a CCW license if you apply.

35 of the 50 United States are "shall-issue". Let's compare those with the violent crime rankings.
http://www.packing.org/state/report_shall_issue.php
http://www.census.gov/statab/ranks/rank21.html

Average rank of "shall-issue" or unrestricted state in violent crime: 26/50. Hmmm...no trend here one way or the other.

Now let's look at *when* CCW laws were passed, and compare the statistics before and after. I'll pick Florida, since it has a very high crime rate and a high urban population, and the anti-gun zealots can't say "things are different in rural areas, we need gun control in the cities".

In Florida, the CCW law was signed in 1987.

In the ten years from 1977-1987, crime in general was up 26%, violent crime was up 49%, and all categories of crime were steadily increasing year over year.
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/flcrime.htm

In the ten years from 1988 to 1998, crime in general was down 23%, violent crime was down 16%, and all categories of crime were steadily decreasing. Crime levels continue to fall as of 2004.

How about that! Crime levels start falling right after law-abiding citizens are allowed to carry concealed weapons!

Contrast that with the UK statistics, in which gun crime rates rose dramatically after handguns were completely banned:

http://tetongravity.com/forums/attac...1&d=1176763139

You can tell all the scare stories you want, but the facts remain. Anti-gun laws make you more likely to be the victim of a crime, not less.

Note: I just did this research tonight. It's easy...all you have to do is Google around for facts and statistics, use a calculator, and you can figure it out for yourself.

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page