Train!

Well. I guess I'll throw in my 2cents. I wanted to post this earlier, as I saw the 1st post pretty quickly. For what it is worth. I have had lots of training- not a professional. I think I'm pretty good with a pistol (certainly not as good as Atrain!). I'm not sure it would have happened any differently if it had been me. It was most likely a matter of seconds, and no matter what anyone says, 65 yards is a long way shooting with a concealable pistol in that situation. I'd love to be the hero- but the reality would likely be very different.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zundfolge

I think we tend to over think these things. Sure, there's much value in training ... anything that makes your shots more effective is good. But the biggest "mindset" issue you need to work on is clearing leather and getting lead downrange ... don't worry about bystanders (what good is it to wait for that perfect shot while the shooter puts bullets in the heads of innocent folk ... if you happen to put a bullet into the leg or torso of a bystander it'll suck, but its just a risk you have to put out of your mind).

---

Zund, how do you always find a way to say things so damn well?
+1 on this.


Guys, while this is an interesting discussion, this is not where I was hoping this thread would go. The IHOP incident was only an example.
My point is that this:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bailey Guns

At least he knows enough to not attempt to perform beyond his capabilities.

---

... should not be the comments we see in a discussion about an "active shooter" incident where there was an armed citizen in the area.
Choosing not to intervene for your own well being is one thing, but choosing not to intervene because you don't think you have the skills to do so is another entirely.
I'm not saying that people should go around trying to be James Bond with little to know training behind them, I'm saying that someone who takes responsibility for their well being by carrying a weapon has absolutely no excuse for not getting the proper training to handle that weapon... something that's far too common of an occurrence.

Being able to "handle that weapon" and being able to proactively and effectively engage an active shooter 65 yards away while offering minimum danger to innocents are two different things.

I think the comment you have an issue with is entirely appropriate to the discussion.

Furthermore, how do you know there was only the one armed citizen in the area. There could've been 10...or 100...armed people in the area who chose not to intervene and who've chosen to remain silent for various reasons.

Arming yourself to protect self and loved ones only is just as valid a reason to carry as any other. I have no legal obligation to protect anyone. The moral obligation I feel to protect (or not to protect) society in general is my business alone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mcantar18c

I'm not saying that people should go around trying to be James Bond with little to know training behind them, I'm saying that someone who takes responsibility for their well being by carrying a weapon has absolutely no excuse for not getting the proper training to handle that weapon... something that's far too common of an occurrence.

---

Agreed, I think the other side of the coin that we are talking about is that there are too many people with guns and training who think they can take on the world, only to quickly find their way to bad results (often with a lot of training see: Pima county SWAT team kills Marine, NYPD accidentally shoots O/O uniform officer, Texas CCW shoots gunman in chest - Dies, etc.).

- A little thinking goes a LONG way, finger on the trigger or not.

Finally I think he handled that weapon exactly right- honestly. He took no oath to protect anyone, their protection was on them. He was responsible for #1, and pulling that trigger gets him shot 8 times out of 10 and the gunman one more hash mark on his rifle. I do not believe there is enough combat training and mindset education on earth to swing the odds in CCW guys favor. Whoever trained him to think trained him right.

-Hypothetical, I see an Apache attacking a school. Do I A.) shoot it down with my CCW gun. B.) quickly leave the situation, call for adequate levels of help, observe as able. The answer is B. While this is more extreme, AK vs. CCW pistol, AK wins unless a dog is on the AK and you have tons of trigger time on that kel-tec.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mcantar18c

Zund, how do you always find a way to say things so damn well?
+1 on this.


Guys, while this is an interesting discussion, this is not where I was hoping this thread would go. The IHOP incident was only an example.
My point is that this:

... should not be the comments we see in a discussion about an "active shooter" incident where there was an armed citizen in the area.
Choosing not to intervene for your own well being is one thing, but choosing not to intervene because you don't think you have the skills to do so is another entirely.
I'm not saying that people should go around trying to be James Bond with little to know training behind them, I'm saying that someone who takes responsibility for their well being by carrying a weapon has absolutely no excuse for not getting the proper training to handle that weapon... something that's far too common of an occurrence.

---

The more I think about this post, the more it seems it's completely illogical to me.

Someone chooses not to intervene in an active shooter situation for personal safety reasons is perfectly valid. Not doing so because you don't think you have the skill set to do so effectively or safely is also perfectly valid.

How is that any different from a police officer encountering a situation that's beyond his/her ability to control so he/she decides to back off until:

• Help arrives
• It's bumped up to SWAT or other specialized teams

Working within your limits applies to lots of things in life. Why shouldn't it apply to intervening in deadly force encounters?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bailey Guns

There are good arguments on both sides of this issue. There is plenty of precedent to support both sides as well.

There was a mass shooting a few years ago, don't recall where, that involved a guy who tried to stop the shooting and was killed. If I recall correctly he had some equipment issues or something. Anyway, he's dead.

Personal experience: When my supervisor, Sgt Tim Mossbrucker was killed at the Albertson's store on Bowles/Kipling by a scumbag named Albert Petroski, the shooter (Petroski) was stopped by an off duty IRS(?) agent that took a shot from a little over 100 yds with a S&W 9MM auto (if I recall correctly). Damn near hit Petroski in the head, too. But once Petroski started taking fire he surrendered.

I'll never forget the words over the radio..."Get medical in here. Victor 4's been shot."

Anyway, I, for one, will never second guess the guy for not taking a shot at the shooter 65 yds or so away. He did what he thought was right and I respect that. At least he knows enough to not attempt to perform beyond his capabilities. People who aren't that smart get others killed every day in one fashion or another.

Yes, I'm a big advocate of training. Been teaching a CCW class all day as a matter of fact. But in reality, we tell people it's their decision to make, but advise against intervening in a deadly force scenario unless the student or someone they really care for is in danger.

The reality is you open yourself up to all sorts of things that can go wrong when you intervene.

I'm really comfortable with my level of experience and training. I've made the personal decision that there are going to have to be some serious extenuating circumstances before I'm going to employ deadly force for Joe Public.

---

I have been talking with my brother about this and no one knows what was going through that guys head, like I said earlier an AK47 is kind of a scary gun when you are on the other end of it and the guy probably had a small carry gun which would make for a hard shot a 65 yards, so that guy should be able to sleep knowing he did the right thing. I also agree that you should train with your gun and know it well, I would not let me wife carry until I felt she had the proper training, without it the gun can do more harm then good.

So where can Joe Public like me go to train to get better with my CCW?

Randy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trlcavscout

If its a mugging, bank robbery etc where their are no gun shots fired its better to be a good witness but once shots are fired I believe its time to get involved if you can do so without injurying the wrong people. I agree with not takeing the 65yd shot, but if he had ran over their he "may" have saved at least one life?

Although I dont believe 65yds is to far for a handgun. Some believe handguns are for 10yds only just like they believe archery hunting is 20yds maximum.

---

yeah or lost his own or caused more damage or killed an another...you just never know.

I am with Irving. no way would I be out shooting a 65 yard shot with my pistol....especially since I have soo many carry weapons...one of my own personal problems that I need to figure out.

not if I had my bow...no problem. would look like rambo 5 dropping that sum-bitch in his tracks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bailey Guns

Being able to "handle that weapon" and being able to proactively and effectively engage an active shooter 65 yards away while offering minimum danger to innocents are two different things.

I think the comment you have an issue with is entirely appropriate to the discussion.

Furthermore, how do you know there was only the one armed citizen in the area. There could've been 10...or 100...armed people in the area who chose not to intervene and who've chosen to remain silent for various reasons.

Arming yourself to protect self and loved ones only is just as valid a reason to carry as any other. I have no legal obligation to protect anyone. The moral obligation I feel to protect (or not to protect) society in general is my business alone.

---

I wasn't attacking your post personally. What I was getting at is that we should be praising him for his action, not for his inaction.

Everybody has a different opinion on these things, but I see no reason that a 65 yard shot should be out of the question as far as one's abilities with their carry weapon.

You by no means have any obligation to protect the sheep... they have the option to carry, and have chosen to not take it. But I think I'd have trouble sleeping at night knowing that I could have done something and didn't, and lives were lost because of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bailey Guns

The more I think about this post, the more it seems it's completely illogical to me.

Someone chooses not to intervene in an active shooter situation for personal safety reasons is perfectly valid. Not doing so because you don't think you have the skill set to do so effectively or safely is also perfectly valid.

---

I disagree. Not having the skillset to effectively engage and stop a threat completely negates the idea of carrying a weapon. Ability without skill is pointless, skill without ability is useless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trout_champ

So where can Joe Public like me go to train to get better with my CCW?

Randy

---

I have my opinions on which school is best, but any number of places can teach you skills that can help you.

Here's another example.
A guy I know who has proven more than once that he has what it takes to get the job done, just proved it once more. This is a man who has had extensive training from a certain private sector school (the one I referenced above) and it certainly helped him out.
He was on a bus yesterday, Sept. 10, heading back home, when armed thugs boarded the bus demanding the passengers hand over their cash, threatened to kill people, the usual (usual for his AO anyway).
He was close to the door, and when he saw an opening he took it and bolted out. Went around the front of the bus and peered through the windshield to see what he could do, then realizing he was an easy target where he was standing he ducked below the windows and moved along the side of the bus. He rounded the corner at the back of the bus and found himself between two of the thugs... one of which sped off on his motorcycle. The other raised his gun and wound up with 7 new holes in him.
A few hours later (took so long cause he had to explain to the authorities why two of those rounds hit the thug in the back), he was escorted back to his home and his weapon was returned to him.
I don't know what happened to the thugs on the bus... don't have those details.

While this may be an unlikely scenario here in the US for most of us, so is a guy shooting up an IHOP with an AK or some asshats going and shooting up a high school. Not only is C is alive and well and returning to his family, but so are the folks on the bus because of his actions. He could have just as easily kept running when he got out the door but chose not to, and now he and others are alive because of his training.