Oregon

[1969912 0]

Looks like an armed citizen may have stopped the mall shooter. http://www.kgw.com/news/Clackamas-man-armed-confronts-mall-shooter-183593571.html

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[JerryBaumchen 1,454]

Hi 912,

How could he have 'stopped' him when he did not do anything?

JerryBaumchen

[1969912 0]

Quote

Hi 912,

How could he have 'stopped' him when he did not do anything?

JerryBaumchen

The shooter may have stopped trying to clear the jam when he saw the guy with the gun, and just went on to the final stage in his plan (killing himself).

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Looks like an armed citizen may have stopped the mall shooter. http://www.kgw.com/news/Clackamas-man-armed-confronts-mall-shooter-183593571.html

not sure I agree with your assessment that he stopped him, but I do see another example showing that CCW holders aren't eager to fire wildly at a bad guy and hit bystanders, in stark contrast to the NYPD.

TK, you should feel assured! (save that you're really just interested in ranting)

[JerryBaumchen 1,454]

Hi 912,

Quote

The shooter may have . . .

And the 'hero' may have wet his pants, also.

May this or may that do not mean jack squat, to me.

What did this guy do: Nothing

I saw this guy on the news this evening; IMO he is not credible.

JerryBaumchen

[tkhayes 348]

The NYPD is required to intervene, so shots got fired, even if bystanders may be in the way. It's their job to deal with the situation.

The citizen is NOT required to intervene, changing the dynamic significantly.

This guy may or may not have been there with his weapon. He says so, I'll take his word at that. He did not intervene in the end. There is little support here that carrying a gun on your person would do any good for anyone.

Putting more guns out there to solve problems has NOT been demonstrated by this story.

If he was a police officer, who knows if any shots would have been fired either I suppose, but I prefer the trained police officer to the 'untrained' citizen.

[rhaig 0]

Quote

The NYPD is required to intervene, so shots got fired, even if bystanders may be in the way. It's their job to deal with the situation.

The citizen is NOT required to intervene, changing the dynamic significantly.

This guy may or may not have been there with his weapon. He says so, I'll take his word at that. He did not intervene in the end. There is little support here that carrying a gun on your person would do any good for anyone.

Putting more guns out there to solve problems has NOT been demonstrated by this story.

If he was a police officer, who knows if any shots would have been fired either I suppose, but I prefer the trained police officer to the 'untrained' citizen.

make sure you clean out your ears when you pull your head out of the sand.

--
Rob

[Gravitymaster 0]

I wasn't thinking "sand".

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

The NYPD is required to intervene, so shots got fired, even if bystanders may be in the way. It's their job to deal with the situation.

If that's the case, perhaps they should be competent shooters so this sort of thing doesn't happen?

Despite all the instances by you and others about the likely outcome of CCW holders stepping in and shooting bystanders, you're unable to come up with much evidence, despite the existence of millions of CCWs for many many years.

If a CCW holder shot 10 innocents while trying to stop a crime, you and the Brady nuts would trumpet it until the permits were banned. But here, we have supposedly trained cops doing it, and it's them doing their duty? WTF? The civilian would be hit with criminal and civil charges for this. The cops were backed by their department.

Quote

This guy may or may not have been there with his weapon. He says so, I'll take his word at that. He did not intervene in the end. There is little support here that carrying a gun on your person would do any good for anyone.

All that matters is that the CCW doesn't make it worse. It doesn't have to be the solution every problem.

Quote

If he was a police officer, who knows if any shots would have been fired either I suppose, but I prefer the trained police officer to the 'untrained' citizen.

People are dying to find out why. Literally.

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

The NYPD is required to intervene, so shots got fired, even if bystanders may be in the way. It's their job to deal with the situation.

Actually, the LEOs job is to protect life, public peace, and property, in that order. They are not there just to "intervene". That being said, I tend to support officers who fired in the line of duty until something compelling demonstrates they were horribly wrong. e.g. I initially supported the NO Katrina cops who fired on people at Danziger Bridge; it later came out they were liars and murderers, and I was glad to see them get what they got (wish it was more, actually).

ps - You realize most cops can't shoot for shit, right? Most departments don't train hard enough, long enough, or thoroughly enough during their academy training, and very few have any significant in service training. The vast majority merely go through "qualification" motions. You know, where 70% is good enough. It's up to officer to make up the difference.

Quote

The citizen is NOT required to intervene, changing the dynamic significantly.

This guy may or may not have been there with his weapon. He says so, I'll take his word at that. He did not intervene in the end. There is little support here that carrying a gun on your person would do any good for anyone.

Putting more guns out there to solve problems has NOT been demonstrated by this story.

If he was a police officer, who knows if any shots would have been fired either I suppose, but I prefer the trained police officer to the 'untrained' citizen.

Like someone said who cares if it makes every situation better, as long as it doesn't make it worse. Can you show where it has made it worse? I can think of several where it's made the situation better.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[1969912 0]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_s9H5WUzRWk

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[tkhayes 348]

Quote

Despite all the instances by you and others about the likely outcome of CCW holders stepping in and shooting bystanders, you're unable to come up with much evidence, despite the existence of millions of CCWs for many many years.

And you are unable to come up with much evidence that CCW's help prevent massacres or homicide in general for that matter.

Quote

But here, we have supposedly trained cops doing it, and it's them doing their duty?

Yes, it is their duty, and given that they are required to intervene, because it is their job, then they are more likely than anyone to actually be involved in a shooting.

It's kind of like - there are many aviation businesses on the Zephyrhills airport, but if there is going to be an accident, it will most likely involve Skydive City because we do more take-offs and landings and more activity that everyone else on the airport combined, so yes, we would actually likely be the ones involved.

Police are more involved in 'crime' and 'shootings' that anyone else, so you will see more police related shootings.

[tkhayes 348]

Quote

You realize most cops can't shoot for shit, right? Most departments don't train hard enough, long enough, or thoroughly enough during their academy training, and very few have any significant in service training. The vast majority merely go through "qualification" motions. You know, where 70% is good enough. It's up to officer to make up the difference.

And most CCW permit holders have even less training, making them nothing short of a danger to society rather than a benefit.

I did not make any claim that the mall 'hero' made the situation worse, but most the gun lobby makes the claim that CCW holders (and more and more of them) will make any given situation 'better'. And that is not really supported by any evidence. Yes it might 'possibly' make the situation better, and it might not.

Carrying a jar of peanut butter around might make situations better too and I have a case about my 'right' to do that, but there is no evidence that carrying a jar of peanut butter around actually does anyone much good. But the jar of peanut butter is not a lethal weapon in the hands of an 'untrained person'.

Now substitute 'jar of peanut butter' with assault rifle. Nuclear bomb. stick of dynamite. hand grenade. Shotgun. 50mm anti-aircraft gun. chemical weapon.

Obviously you (most of the gun lobby) do not agree with changing anything, so I expect then that nothing will change. And so far, I am right.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Despite all the instances by you and others about the likely outcome of CCW holders stepping in and shooting bystanders, you're unable to come up with much evidence, despite the existence of millions of CCWs for many many years.

And you are unable to come up with much evidence that CCW's help prevent massacres or homicide in general for that matter.

But I don't need to provide such evidence, particularly since I've haven't claimed that CCWs will stop such attempts. I've long held that we've seen no downsides to the CCW proliferation and give people better options than begging for their lives.

Quote

Quote

But here, we have supposedly trained cops doing it, and it's them doing their duty?

Police are more involved in 'crime' and 'shootings' that anyone else, so you will see more police related shootings.

Do we? How many police shootings are there each year? Estimates of civilian gun defense use varies from as low as 85,000 to into the millions. I'm sure reality is somewhere in the middle. So again, if with all these events people aren't shooting bystanders in any measurable amount, why are you fine with cops shooting 9 bystanders? And note, in that case, neither cop had used their gun in the line of duty.

Put plainly, your faith in LEOs, whose shooting proficiency depends entirely on their choice to train off duty, couple with your disdain for the judgement of CCW holders, is unfounded, unsupportable.

[tkhayes 348]

Obviously you (most of the gun lobby) do not agree with changing anything, so I expect then that nothing will change. And so far, I am right.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Obviously you (most of the gun lobby) do not agree with changing anything, so I expect then that nothing will change. And so far, I am right.

What we want is something other than knee-jerk reactions everytime a gun is used in a mass murder. Perhaps when you start coming up with something other than punishing law abiding citizens, someone will listen. Until then your whining will continue to fall on deaf ears.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Obviously you (most of the gun lobby) do not agree with changing anything, so I expect then that nothing will change. And so far, I am right.

I don't recall the ACLU selling out civil rights after 9/11, even when people were eager to throw them away. Why would the gun rights folk be any different?

[regulator 0]

Your argument is pointless. And I'll tell you how. A vast majority of concealed weapon permit holders are men. You pontificate that 10,000 people were at the mall when the shooting occurred and there should have been great odds that at least 500 of the people there had a concealed weapon permit. Lets think about this for a minute...do you honestly think that the sector of men who carry would want to be at a fucking MALL with 9,000 other asshats bumping into them? Which, in reality all it took was ONE ccw permit holder to prevent further bloodshed and forced the perp to kill themselves. One poor bastard that was comandeered by his wife to do some shopping...when Im sure he would have been happier doing something else, but yet just that one person was enough.

[toolbox 0]

I have a washington state CCW and I have not carried any weopons in stores,malls,theaters or public buildings.
I carry only within the law and that means no concealed carry for me in oregon or any other state that will not recognise my washington permit.
I have family who live in very remote areas of washington state and have seen cougar and very large bear.
Last year I looked out my moms kitchen window to see about a 450+ pound bear looking back at me on the deck.
A hand gun is not my first choice for defense against a bear but,it is better than hoping the bear may choke on my fist before he can kill me,if he attacks.
I also like to carry in the car especially since I have twice had someone attempt to attack me while sitting in the car(always in the cities) and,both times had simply to let them see I also had a weapon at which point they put their weapon down and ceased the confrontation.
The recent shootings have made me wonder if maybe I should carry everywhere I can by law.
I do not ever want to shoot a person or even a bear as far as that go's.
Hell I could have shot several bears and large cats over the years but would rather enjoy seeing them and knowing wildlife is still out there and would only shoot if attacked.
In a mall setting,I would probably hide or retreat away from the shooter,unless they presented an easy target at close range,and I am a very good shot.
I bet if the mall was full of armed ex combat troops the guy would never have got a round off before someone saw the rifle and ventilated his ass.
People need to realize that in this day and age there is no gaurantee of safety anywhere and we all should be wary because the world is,and always has been a dangerous place and you never see it coming,otherwise you would get out of the way,and not get blown up,shot,stabbed,or beaten to death.

[steve1 5]

Most Malls have people spread all over. Sure there were probably many packing a weapon that day, but they were nowhere close. The shooting was over before they could get there. Maybe they were so far away, that they didn't even hear the shots.

It sounds like the two that were carrying that day did the right thing. They didn't shoot for fear of hitting somebody else.

This perp was heavily armed. The damage could have been far worse. This nut case knew this mall was an open carry place. I think one of the big reasons there weren't more killings that day was because this was a place where concealed carry was allowed. He chose to end his own life, before someone else did that for him.

This is far different from a school where guns are not allowed by anyone.....

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Most Malls have people spread all over. Sure there were probably many packing a weapon that day, but they were nowhere close. The shooting was over before they could get there. Maybe they were so far away, that they didn't even hear the shots.

It sounds like the two that were carrying that day did the right thing. They didn't shoot for fear of hitting somebody else.

This perp was heavily armed. The damage could have been far worse. This nut case knew this mall was an open carry place. I think one of the big reasons there weren't more killings that day was because this was a place where concealed carry was allowed. He chose to end his own life, before someone else did that for him.

This is far different from a school where guns are not allowed by anyone.....

lawrocket posted earlier that this was a gun free mall

Have you seen something that says otherwise?

And to your point, it was the permited carrier that seemed to move this person to end it himself

Just by pulling and aiming at him

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[steve1 5]

Quote

[
.....

lawrocket posted earlier that this was a gun free mall

Have you seen something that says otherwise?

[JerryBaumchen 1,454]

Hi steve,

Quote

reasons there weren't more killings

I live fairly close to this mall; about 10-15 miles away. And I have been there on numerous occasions.

I have read every newspaper article & watched lots tv news about this event.

From what I can determine, the reason there only two pedestrians killed was because his gun jammed.

Not the 'so-called' hero you're hearing about.

JerryBaumchen

[JerryBaumchen 1,454]

Hi rush,

Quote

it was the permited carrier that seemed to move this person to end it himself

I could not disagree more. However, I respect your right to your opinion.

JerryBaumchen

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

[
.....

lawrocket posted earlier that this was a gun free mall

Have you seen something that says otherwise?

....I'm just replying to those who are slamming concealed carry laws or places. There are several posts suggesting that civilians with guns, failed that day. I'm just saying more or less what Lawn Rocket said earlier.......This trajedy could have been far worse. The fact that this was a gun free Mall, may have been the reason more lives weren't lost that day.

About thirty years ago there was a similiar shooting in a Mall in Salem, Oregon. My brother was in the police academy then. He met another cadet who washed out of the academy. I guess he was not police material. Probably a section 8, kind of guy. A few weeks later that same kid shot up a Mall in Salem. If I remember right he killed a few people and then took his own life. This sort of thing has been going on a long time in all parts of the country.