View Full Version : It's hard to be a good guy with a gun
http://gawker.com/its-really-hard-to-be-a-good-guy-with-a-gun-1588660306
Hmm. I agree. It is hard.
If not me, then who?
Guy forgets the mall shooter in Oregon (what was it, last year?). A CCW holder pulled his pistol as the shooter was reloading, the shooter saw this and knew he was about to be shot and killed himself.
Using this CCW guy who died trying to stop the carnage as a reason why we shouldn't have/carry guns is absurd. If it was possible ask the guy who died what he thought, do you think he'd change his mind? I'll wager he wouldn't, albeit maybe to look behind him on a "do-over". The bitch slinking along was an outlyer in these types of cases; usually it is quite evident who all is involved, especially up close and personal.
I'm waiting to see some twit of an anti-gun politician use this case to push more gun control laws and say "See? Having and carrying gun doesn't keep you or anyone else safe.":rolleyes:
Guy forgets the mall shooter in Oregon (what was it, last year?). A CCW holder pulled his pistol as the shooter was reloading, the shooter saw this and knew he was about to be shot and killed himself.
Using this CCW guy who died trying to stop the carnage as a reason why we shouldn't have/carry guns is absurd. If it was possible ask the guy who died what he thought, do you think he'd change his mind? I'll wager he wouldn't, albeit maybe to look behind him on a "do-over". The bitch slinking along was an outlyer in these types of cases; usually it is quite evident who all is involved, especially up close and personal.
The more I think about it I think her intent was to ambush the next cop who came in the door. I think those two ****s put a little bit of planning into it.
Voodoo_Man
06-10-14, 21:41
Carrying a gun is one very small part of a very large puzzl3.
Training for the fight is more important than what firearm, round or holster your have.
If you do not have the training and mindset you are setting yourself up for a huge fail.
Carrying a gun is one very small part of a very large puzzl3.
Training for the fight is more important than what firearm, round or holster your have.
If you do not have the training and mindset you are setting yourself up for a huge fail.
While hindsight is certainly 20/20, this came to mind: was the perp shooting up the Wal mart? If so, folks were no doubt running or diving for cover all over the place. This bitch just pushing her cart *should* have seemed a bit out of place. Again, hindsight and all.......
There's a reason I actually practice at 50 yards with my carry gun. If something like this ever happens around me, the optimal plan is to go into sniper mode.
Voodoo_Man
06-10-14, 22:08
While hindsight is certainly 20/20, this came to mind: was the perp shooting up the Wal mart? If so, folks were no doubt running or diving for cover all over the place. This bitch just pushing her cart *should* have seemed a bit out of place. Again, hindsight and all.......
sure I agree in hindsight everything is crystal clear. The issue is there are a lot of factors that we simply don't know. I take everything I read from the media with a grain of salt I want to see the video before I make any real statements. Furthermore this good guy with a gun may have used excellence tactics which may still have gotten him killed.
when more information comes out then we will have a better idea of what actually happened
BoringGuy45
06-11-14, 00:03
Unfortunately, the good guys don't always win, no matter the circumstances. You could have a Tier 1 operator who shoots more rounds in a day than most people do in a lifetime and has expert level proficiency in scenarios you didn't even think were logically possible. The bad guy, who's greatest shooting accomplishment is not holding his gun sideways, may just have the perfect timing and perfect angle to win the fight this one time...and once is all you need. The anti-gunners would like to use situations like this for one of their favorite arguing techniques: 100% logical fallacy made to sound intelligent. Here, they'll use the fallacy of exception. "This guy carried a gun legally and was still murdered. This proves, beyond a reasonable doubt, that carrying a weapon for self defense is 100% useless in any situation whatsoever. I rest my case, court adjourned, Mr. and Mrs America, turn 'em all in!" However, as we know, carrying a weapon doesn't make you invincible. Training with the weapon doesn't make you invincible. Using the weapon doesn't make you invincible. We carry firearms simply because it at least gives us a chance for survival we would otherwise not have.
Happens to cops every once in awhile too.
Being in a dangerous situation and trying to figure out "friend from foe" on the fly isn't easy. A couple years back we had a plain clothes detective get lit up by fellow officers when he responded to an "armed individual" call.
For the regular guy with a CCW, you have to decide along your own personal set of values. If you go to the rescue and try and get the bad guy, it can go bad for you and you might lose to the bad guy or to his unknown accomplice(s) as in this case. It's always terrible when somebody who is trying to help, regardless of if they are a private citizen or law enforcement, loses. Nobody is obligated, but you do need to live with yourself and your actions or lack of action.
But at the same time, if you sit tight while horribly evil people kill innocents and you have to spend the rest of your life realizing you might have been able to stop it, can you live with it? You also have to consider the people you are responsible for such as your family, if it goes bad with they accept your decision.
It would have been great if Wilcox had been successful and saved some lives. Would have been even better if somebody had been there to put an end to these two sick ****s before they could kill two cops. But that isn't how it went down, sometimes evil gets it's way in a horrible fashion.
Wilcox decided he needed to try. The world would be a better place with more people like Wilcox and fewer people like the Millers.
The more I think about it I think her intent was to ambush the next cop who came in the door. I think those two ****s put a little bit of planning into it.
Very likely.
One of my best friends posted the link on Facebook. The idea put forth in the article that good guys rarely stop bad guys is actually factually true. It's extremely rare considering the number of shootings. So I replied:
To be intellectually honest, there's a reason good guys with guns extremely rarely, in practice, stop bad guys with guns. It's called "gun free zones". They're places in which guns are illegal, like schools, federal buildings, churches (I think), and any private business that posts a sign forbidding guns. Shopping malls and movie theaters frequently ban guns on their property, even in a very conservative and pro-gun state like Oklahoma.
So the "good guys with guns", being "good guys", obey the law and don't bring guns into the gun free zone. Bad guys with guns, being bad guys, disobey the law (I mean they're going to murder people anyway, what's one more law broken) and bring their guns into the gun free zone. So these bad guys have no one to stop them on an equal footing until the police arrive 15+ minutes later. Even with a musket, you could fire 45 rounds in 15 minutes.
The shooting in Vegas is one of the few times in which an attempted mass shooting happened OUTSIDE of a gun free zone. And what happened? A man named Joseph Wilcox stepped up and put his own safety on the line to stop a criminal from possibly killing many others.
Even if he had been a Ninja Ranger SEAL with a sniper assault machine gun and a high capacity banana drum clip, he would have died in that situation because he was shot in the back. That's no reason not to try.
In Seattle a few days ago, Jon Meis fought back. And he managed to subdue the shooter. Had there been two shooters, he would have been another casualty. But if Meis did not do something, many more people most likely would have died.
Carrying a gun is a very personal decision and it's not for everyone. But those who volunteer to take that responsibility should be allowed to do so. It takes a special kind of person to run towards the sound of gunfire instead of away from it, and wearing a uniform is not a requirement to be that kind of a person.
One of my best friends posted the link on Facebook. The idea put forth in the article that good guys rarely stop bad guys is actually factually true. It's extremely rare considering the number of shootings. So I replied:
To be intellectually honest, there's a reason good guys with guns extremely rarely, in practice, stop bad guys with guns. It's called "gun free zones". They're places in which guns are illegal, like schools, federal buildings, churches (I think), and any private business that posts a sign forbidding guns. Shopping malls and movie theaters frequently ban guns on their property, even in a very conservative and pro-gun state like Oklahoma.
So the "good guys with guns", being "good guys", obey the law and don't bring guns into the gun free zone. Bad guys with guns, being bad guys, disobey the law (I mean they're going to murder people anyway, what's one more law broken) and bring their guns into the gun free zone. So these bad guys have no one to stop them on an equal footing until the police arrive 15+ minutes later. Even with a musket, you could fire 45 rounds in 15 minutes.
The shooting in Vegas is one of the few times in which an attempted mass shooting happened OUTSIDE of a gun free zone. And what happened? A man named Joseph Wilcox stepped up and put his own safety on the line to stop a criminal from possibly killing many others.
Even if he had been a Ninja Ranger SEAL with a sniper assault machine gun and a high capacity banana drum clip, he would have died in that situation because he was shot in the back. That's no reason not to try.
In Seattle a few days ago, Jon Meis fought back. And he managed to subdue the shooter. Had there been two shooters, he would have been another casualty. But if Meis did not do something, many more people most likely would have died.
Carrying a gun is a very personal decision and it's not for everyone. But those who volunteer to take that responsibility should be allowed to do so. It takes a special kind of person to run towards the sound of gunfire instead of away from it, and wearing a uniform is not a requirement to be that kind of a person.
Add to all that the fact that "bad guys" don't have the same mental inhibitors when it comes to shooting people that most "honest folks" have. Bad guys understand the situation "as it is now", good guys are playing "catch up" and don't know who all the players are. Bad guys also generally have more experience and are better at things like actually shooting people. All of a persons years of tearing up paper don't amount to a handful of incidents where a really bad person kills without hesitation or remorse.
So it is absolutely correct that the armed "good guy" is at a significant disadvantage when dealing with violent, evil criminal types. But does being "unarmed" improve things in any way for the good guy? That is the real question to consider.
I'm not going to suggest that if "I" was in that Wal Mart I would have taken out the two perps and saved the day. But If I had to be in the Wal Mart I'd rather be there WITH a gun than without one.
Once again Obama tried to blame this crap on guns. He suggested we weren't the only country with people with mental issues. He tried to suggest the only difference between us and other countries is here people have access to weapons and large quantities of ammo.
Well that was true in the 1980s and we didn't have a school shooting every other week then either? So we have to ask, what has changed since then? It certainly isn't more guns or easier access to guns. What things are we tolerating in society today that put everyone at risk that wasn't tolerated then? What kinds of people are released into society that might not have been free to walk the streets then?
Why is is every school shooter seems to have severe psychological / mental disorders and yet he is still free enough to write a manifesto, form a plan, access weapons, prestage the attack and still catch everyone off guard? And why are we seemingly producing so many violently sociopathic individuals? What has changed?
Because really, the guns have always been there. And the cars, and the knives and the lead pipes.
BoringGuy45
06-11-14, 08:10
Obama fails to realize that this crap happens ALL THE TIME throughout the world, but often goes unreported due to the nature of many nations' restrictions on press freedom. It only is reported if the death toll is astronomical, it's terrorist related, or it happens in a stable, 1st world country.
People like that guy do as much harm as.. well I won't say..
While CCW licenses are at an all time high, it's still a small subset of the population and only a fairly small subset of those are actually carrying at a given time for a variety of reasons. Then, only a subset of those are inclined to intercede if they are not directly targets. Then, situations like this are fairly rare despite the impression you get from the media. Add all those up and of course a CCW holder doesn't often stop a violent event.
But those that point to numbers miss the point. It could be 99.99999% ineffective and it wouldn't matter. It's about my right to choose my options when pursuing my personal responsibility for my own safety. Since it's *my* safety, it's *my* choice. It's my *right*. Full stop.
-john
Agreed, there are a lot of things that people neglect to think about in a SD shooting. Many, if not most, are not prepared for everything in the aftermath.
The idea put forth in the article that good guys rarely stop bad guys is actually factually true.
I would say it is complete factual bullshit since it is impossible to measure what didn't happen, or what has happened in thousands of jurisdictions over the years. Do your "facts" include the time my mother (I was 2) used a gun to stop a bad guy with a gun or did you not know about it when you were collecting these "facts"?
That man died an extremely noble death. Not only did he do the right thing but the circumstance of his passing has firmly entrenched a fundamental rule into anyone of the same mindset.
That man died an extremely noble death. Not only did he do the right thing but the circumstance of his passing has firmly entrenched a fundamental rule into anyone of the same mindset.
I'm right there with you. He died doing what he felt was the correct thing, even at risk of his own life.
He was caught off guard just like the two "trained LEOs" who lost their lives. For all we really know his attempted intervention brought the shooting to a conclusion when the Millers realized they will now be killing CCW people rather than their preferred targets such as responding officers.
Maybe Wilcox really did manage to save a few people that day.
Unfortunately, the good guys don't always win, no matter the circumstances. You could have a Tier 1 operator who shoots more rounds in a day than most people do in a lifetime and has expert level proficiency in scenarios you didn't even think were logically possible. The bad guy, who's greatest shooting accomplishment is not holding his gun sideways, may just have the perfect timing and perfect angle to win the fight this one time...and once is all you need. The anti-gunners would like to use situations like this for one of their favorite arguing techniques: 100% logical fallacy made to sound intelligent. Here, they'll use the fallacy of exception. "This guy carried a gun legally and was still murdered. This proves, beyond a reasonable doubt, that carrying a weapon for self defense is 100% useless in any situation whatsoever. I rest my case, court adjourned, Mr. and Mrs America, turn 'em all in!" However, as we know, carrying a weapon doesn't make you invincible. Training with the weapon doesn't make you invincible. Using the weapon doesn't make you invincible. We carry firearms simply because it at least gives us a chance for survival we would otherwise not have.
Brilliantly worded. To add another related phrase: "The exception often proves the rule."
http://gawker.com/its-really-hard-to-be-a-good-guy-with-a-gun-1588660306
Hmm. I agree. It is hard.
If not me, then who?
This article is a bunch of sissified emo-babble. Reading it left me feeling tainted in some way. Sure he raises some valid points and valid questions. I considered all those and felt some of that same insecurity... back when I was 21 and buying my first handgun. In the two decades since then I have learned a few things, had some training and gained some maturity. With that authors complete state of confusion and apparent lack of any confidence, I think he made the right decision in choosing to walk around like a properly pacified unarmed sheep. Apparently the message of the left has hit home for him and been absorbed well. I wouldn't want him fumbling with indecision while carrying a gun in a situation where it mattered. I can't imagine the look on his father's face when the guy handed all of his guns over to him. Think that was a proud day for dad?
For me, I know when to shoot, and far more importantly when NOT to shoot or get involved. Certainly anyone can make any number of mistakes, but choosing to dismiss a potentially useful self defense tool, because of a bunch of "what ifs..." makes no sense to me. Instead, how about study, train, run some scenarios in some classes, develop the right mindset, and put together a comprehensive defensive strategy. Then try your very best to NOT make any of those potential mistakes while defending your life or your loved ones.
Sometimes the dragon wins. You do the best you can.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.