How to stop a gunman.....?

[hemas]

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).

[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

[DougW]

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.

[tigerstripe40]

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.

[hemas]

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.

[hemas]

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.

[Jer]

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

[truckeelocal]

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.

[Jer]

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?

[Spats]

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:



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.

[spook]

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.

maybe you can google some logic and comprehensive research skills so that you don't continue to make overly simplistic conclusions about complex causal relationships.

[truckeelocal]

...but the facts remain. Anti-gun laws make you more likely to be the victim of a crime, not less.

No, that's your interpretation. The implementation of anti-gun laws may, or may not, increase the number of victims (can it get any worse than 12,000 homicides a year ?).
But cherry picking domestic statistics where guns are prevalent, an estimated 192 million of them, doesn't paint the picture of what happens after the anti-gun laws have gained traction. To do that you have to look at statistics where anti-gun laws have been in place for a period of time or where guns have never been prevalent. Pick your country. Canada ? US has 4 times the rate of firearm homicides. UK, referenced above ? US has 30 times the rate of firearm homicides.

Now I'm not going to convince you of the errors in your assumptions, nor you of mine. Because you're driving to a desired conclusion (I'm driving towards recognition of facts but that's another discussion).

Meanwhile I suggest the various threads on these forums on this topic implicitly agree that gun control should have been implemented. In at least one, very obvious, case.

Meanwhile UK is targetting fake guns and air rifles. Methinks you may have skipped over some relevant articles in your haste to 'prove' your point ...
Contrary to public perception, the overall level of gun crime in the UK is very low – less than 0.5% of all crime recorded by the police.

Facts & figures
In the year ending 31 March 2005 provisional figures show a:

16% reduction in the use of handguns
9% reduction in robberies involving firearms
6% reduction in serious injuries from firearms offences
Despite these figures, the number of overall offences involving firearms has been increasing each year since 1997/98. And crime involving imitation weapons was up 55% in 2004-05 compared to the previous year. (Source: Crime in England and Wales 2004/2005)

Also of concern is a rise in the number of young people carrying real or imitation firearms in an attempt to boost their image or from a mistaken idea about self-protection.

What we’re doing about gun crime
Strengthening the law
We have:

introduced a minimum five-year sentence for people convicted of possessing an illegal firearm
made it an offence to possess an air weapon or imitation firearm in public without legal authority or reasonable excuse
increased the age limit for possession of air rifles to 17
prohibited certain air weapons that are easily converted to fire live ammunition
In June 2005 we announced the Violent Crime Reduction Bill. If the bill is passed it will:

target imitation firearms – by making it illegal to manufacture or sell imitation firearms that could be mistaken for real firearms, strengthening sentences for carrying imitation firearms, and creating tougher manufacturing standards so imitations can’t be converted to fire real ammunition
reduce illegal use of air weapons – by increasing the age limit for buying or firing air weapons without supervision
Targeting illegal firearm supplies
We’re cutting off the supply of firearms into the country by tightening security on import routes and international mail, and monitoring online firearm suppliers.

Tackling the rise in gun culture
We established the Connected (new window) programme to support local community groups in their fight against gun crime.

We also held a highly successful gun amnesty in 2003 which resulted in the handing in of 43,908 guns and 1,039,358 rounds of ammunition.

Can I take the liberty of highlighting something from the above report ? OK, thanks ... young people carrying real or imitation firearms in an attempt to boost their image or from a mistaken idea about self-protection. How's your image - you've got access to real guns ?

[Spats]

maybe you can google some logic and comprehensive research skills so that you don't continue to make overly simplistic conclusions about complex causal relationships.

Come up with a better explanation and we'll talk about it. Stroking your little professor beard and saying "I think it's more complicated than that, but I can't explain why" only proves that you haven't done your research yet.

[spook]

Come up with a better explanation and we'll talk about it. Stroking your little professor beard and saying "I think it's more complicated than that, but I can't explain why" only proves that you haven't done your research yet.

i see you haven't googled any logic yet.

it IS more complicated than that, i DIDN'T say i couldn't explain why (even in some rudimentary manner) and even if i HAD said what you said i did (which i didn't) it doesn't come CLOSE to proving what you said it does.

how about you come up with an idea that can't be torn down by unconsidered factors in less than a minute and then maybe i'll worry about taking the time to write a thesis for somebody who already has his mind made up.

by the way, i'm utterly hairless.

[skifishbum]

Who me? Yes, because these threads are like trying to dig a hole in sand. Futile, and a waste of time.

Carry on.

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.

There, that should cover any future political statements from me, atleast here anyway.

Screw hanging out. Wanna slog up snow covered peaks, ski phat lines take pics and vid and post the stoke on the premier SKIING/BOARDING Internet forum ?

[Blurred]

True , .22 will kill you in certain spots. Lucky or aimed. But the element of surprize and not aimed would work in your favour. Also Engineering text books apart from being expensive are very thick and dense.

A point I didn't bring up before at least one of the guys that left the classroom later committed suicide due to guilt over not doing more.

And and yes if you had a hand gun you would actaully cap his ass like in the movies. Hitting something with a hand gun on the fly is not easy. Think sence from Pulp Fiction. Your not going to hit anything if you don't hit the range often.

Dude, I think you've seen wayyyy too many movies.

Your plan is to rush the guy, armed with school books as a "shield"?



Have you ever owned a .22, or a gun for that matter?

A .22 is as deadly as any other firearm.

In real life scenario, I think you'd see gunman, shit your pants and jump out nearest window as fast as possible.
========================================
And for the rest of you gun control freaks, if there were never any guns in this country and they were outlawed, that would be one thing, but you outlaw them now and they'd be like drugs. Illegal for responsible users, and still plentiful for the criminals who will be using them to fuck up unarmed, defenseless law abiding citizens.

An armed society is a polite society.

[Blurred]

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).

Sorry, but I think I can do a better job of protecting myself being that I have a vested interest. Having "armed personnel" is like the police. By the time they show up, it's too late.

[powstash]

After reading page 7 first I see there is really no purpose in reading 1-6. The summers keep getting longer and longer around here.

[Hicks]

And our skiing isn't as big as yours (Europe anyway) Don't poach an American's line on a power day. Just saying.

Even on our own home turfs here I'll be gunned down now by invading aliens?

[truckeelocal]

Even on our own home turfs here I'll be gunned down now by invading aliens?

It was, in hindsight, a rather pathetic attempt to introduce skiing related concepts here. Silly me

[greenroom]

no hand guns, no semi and automatics only hunting rifles and cops with guns.

Make it super expensive and super hard to get hunting license.

Any one with a gun who is not supposed to have one cut off their hands.

[Jer]

Make it super expensive and super hard to get hunting license.

This would cut down a lot on violent crime.

[AstroPax]

A .22 is as deadly as any other firearm.

Yeah, well I suppose that is true if one is "pistol-whipping" somebody to the point of death.

As far as the ammo goes, and given the choice, would you rather get shot in the shoulder with a .22 cal, or a .50 cal?

And now, the trick question. Which of the following is more likely to cause death, a .22, or a .50?

Hint:

[AstroPax]

Make it super expensive and super hard to get hunting license.

This would cut down a lot on violent crime.

I'm think PETA would agree with you on that one.

[DougW]

Dude, I think you've seen wayyyy too many movies.

Your plan is to rush the guy, armed with school books as a "shield"?



Have you ever owned a .22, or a gun for that matter?

A .22 is as deadly as any other firearm.

In real life scenario, I think you'd see gunman, shit your pants and jump out nearest window as fast as possible.

you have a point but yes have shot a .22 and yes I had to qualify on a 9mm pistol to become an officer , and yes had to carry around a FNC1 for 3 months ,can't remember size but way bigger than M-16 shot, and yes have shot a 9mm sub machine gun and yes roommates in basic went special forces.