PDA

View Full Version : Why Carry????????


threegun
March 3, 2006, 04:43 PM
I was reading an article in handguns magazine. The Tacoma mall shooting. This crazy man walked in the mall and started shooting people. A mall employee pulled his own gun but wouldn't fire and just allowed the badguy to open fire seriously wounding him.


Why carry if you aren't willing to use it?

pt100
March 3, 2006, 04:51 PM
There may have been other variables to be considered, such as people in the background etc, Alot of people carry but the truth is we don't really know how we are going to react when the time comes, we can talk alot of mess of how we would drill the bad guy, but hey man, in reality some people freeze.

WhyteP38
March 3, 2006, 05:49 PM
There may have been other variables to be considered, such as people in the background etc, Alot of people carry but the truth is we don't really know how we are going to react when the time comes, we can talk alot of mess of how we would drill the bad guy, but hey man, in reality some people freeze.
All good points. I would also add that many folks don't fully consider the responsibilities, necessities, and consequences of using a gun in self-defense before they start carrying. I've met people who think just displaying a gun will protect them; some of those folks don't even have ammo, either on them or at home. They want to scare off BGs but don't want to hurt anyone. They seem surprised to find out that there are BGs who don't scare so easily.

exar
March 3, 2006, 05:51 PM
I heard the guy wasn't sure of his legal situation for shooting the criminal and it cost him.

shield20
March 3, 2006, 07:01 PM
+1 P38.

You had better have your mind made up that you will shoot if you have to...looong before the situation presents itself. Someone packing just planning for the BG to turn tail may have a very cruel surprise some day. Get your butt out to the range and practice REAL CCW shooting, have confidence that you WILL hit what you aim at, get your head in the law if you have ANY doubt of what you can and can't do legally, and make up your mind NOW you WILL do what it takes to win.

#18indycolts
March 4, 2006, 01:20 AM
if the situation presented itself...I probably would have fired. From what I've read, .40 165g. shoks don't have over-penetration, but who knows....I wasn't there and therefore can't give an accurate account of how it went down.:eek:

threegun
March 4, 2006, 02:58 AM
Just an update. The goodguy drew and positioned himself in a defensive posture but then tucked the gun back in his waistband. He also had the badguys back briefly. He said "I'm looking at this guy, he's a kid. I would have had to shoot him in the head". After the two made eye contact he said to the badguy "I think you need to put that gun down, young man".

So he gets involved and is armed but refuses to shoot this guy and it cost him. After the badguy opened fire on him he said "I felt like an idiot". To make things worst, after being riddled with 762x39 fire, the goodguy tried to crawl after the badguy to try and stop him from hurting others:confused:. Yes after failing to shoot this guy before he himself was shot, he tried to get shot again, I guess.

Glock 31
March 4, 2006, 04:11 AM
Who really knows just exactly how they will act when presented with a situation such as this? You can say "I'd like to think I would shoot" all you want but until the adrenaline starts pumping and the matter becomes life and death you just don't know. The dude was probably a little distracted from his heart trying to thump it's way out of his rib cage.

On the other hand, i'd like to think I would shoot.:cool:

WhyteP38
March 4, 2006, 09:02 AM
Who really knows just exactly how they will act when presented with a situation such as this?
True. However, for the folks I mentioned--who either haven't thought things through first or are hoping to scare off BGs--owning a firearm is a mistake, as it gives them a false sense of security that puts them at greater risk. They'd be better off thinking about ways to hide and/or escape and contacting the police. Their problem isn't that they don't know IF they will shoot a BG; their problem is that they have already decided NOT to shoot before they ever run into a BG.

sterno
March 4, 2006, 11:10 AM
I'd think that I'd be MORE likely to shoot if I was in his shoes than if I was confronted by a mugger. In the mall, it was a clear justified shoot. This guy was mowing people down and there was plenty of witnesses to that. If you shoot a crackhead who's got you at gunpoint in a dark alley, there are no witnesses and if the crackhead survives you know he's going to play the victim.

joneb
March 4, 2006, 12:43 PM
Shooting a innocent person would be my greatest concern, I can imagine some people hit the deck, but others could be running for cover and cross your line of fire. In that situation and aided by hind sight it would be worth the risk.

Glenn E. Meyer
March 4, 2006, 12:50 PM
Walt Rauch had a recent article that analyzed it will. I opine (and since I wasn't there - this opinion is worth spit), that the gentleman failed tactically and wasn't ready to answer the question of whether he would take a life.

Ayoob, IIRC, discusses this is in LFI. You need to be able to pull the trigger when the situation arises.

Many factors enter in to it and I would caution against putting total stock into an after the fact analysis by the gentlemen. Memories fail and realities are created to explain subconscious processes.

Did he think of legal risks? Did he freeze at the moment? Hard to know.

I've seen it in force on force. In a class with an excellent trainer and friend Steve Moses - I saw a martial artist unable to act against an upcoming opponent and land on his ass as he stumbled backwards. Two women were in a scenario. One later admitted that she couldn't pull the trigger and the other was felt the warrior instinct and did with little hestiation (it was a good shoot).

Farnham says you have to act. Sometimes you make the wrong choice. But freezing doesn't help - even if it is a biologically built reaction. Cognitively deciding to hide might be ok.

GUNSITE
March 4, 2006, 05:13 PM
Training versus real life...pressure, it changes everything... some people fold, some people focus. Can you summon your guts at a moments notice? http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/story/5363616p-4853200c.html

erh
March 4, 2006, 05:42 PM
"EASY to Comment, but REALLY Hard to say..!

If YOU haven't been "IN THE MIDST OF IT PERSONALLY..";
You've really got No idea what it's like, or where your mind goes..!
No one does know or will know until they have been, or end up
"Right Amongst It..!"
He did right; He did wrong, who REALLY KNOWS; apparently he thought
he did the right thing.
I hope none of you get into a bad mess like that!
(Trust me & others here undoubtedly, it sucks to be in those shoes..!)
No further comments on that...

(Quote From the master of the obvious...!)

My .02 cents worth,

(erh)

joneb
March 5, 2006, 12:31 AM
Ok now I'm curious, if I were in that situation and fired on the BG and put him down ? but hit a bystander in the process . where would I be Legally :confused:

Blackwater OPS
March 5, 2006, 02:24 AM
Ok now I'm curious, if I were in that situation and fired on the BG and put him down ? but hit a bystander in the process . where would I be Legally
Ok, I guess I will answer this question for the third time.
Criminally the BG killed the bystander not you. In civil court anything can happen. Know your target and what is beyond it.

Edison Carter
March 5, 2006, 02:24 AM
1) Looking for a trailer to live in after the civil suit.

2) You'd be desperately wishing you spent the money on more training.

EC

joneb
March 5, 2006, 02:43 AM
And so if I did'nt shoot the BG and twenty more people were slaughterd that would be ok :confused:

threegun
March 5, 2006, 07:47 AM
Glenn,
Cognitively deciding to hide might be ok.


Especially going against a high powered rifle with only a pistol. My problem is that this guy didn't hide, he started to act then quit......and it almost got him killed.

Blackwater ops, Another concealed carrier drew on this same badguy but couldn't fire because of fear of hitting friendlies. This happened in the parking lot before the badguy entered the mall. Sounds like he maintained awareness of the area and did the right thing.

As for reaction, while training in martial arts I often asked why we practice the same repetitive motions to block/punch ect. Then somebody swings on you and without thought you block and punch.......question answered. Train often. Repeat drawing and firing (even dryfire), when the crap hits the fan you will draw and fire without hesitation or thought.....just reaction. It happened to me just like that except I didn't have to fire (thankfully). Having time to think before hand might change things but I haven't gotten into that situation yet. I can just prepare my mind not to freeze.

LICCW
March 5, 2006, 10:07 AM
A friend of mine spent a night in jail due to a DWI. He's hispanic, and he ran into several very hardened hispanic gang bangers from his neighborhood while spending his wonderful evening incarcerated. During conversation, the MS-13 guys stated that when someone draws on them, they better shoot to kill or the banger will not hesitate to f**k up anyone who threatens him. My friend and I have discussed the incredible danger of producing a firearm without the commitment to use it against people who are very used to violence of all kinds. No one can completely predict how one will react in a situation, but unless you are prepared to use it, don't even carry a firearm. Whichever post said it is a false sense of security if you are not prepared to shoot is right.

Al Norris
March 5, 2006, 04:52 PM
Just an update. The goodguy drew and positioned himself in a defensive posture but then tucked the gun back in his waistband.
Actually, there are several accounts of what "really" happened. They all differ. The bottom line is that even the police aren't sure if the guy had even drawn his weapon when he confronted the kid. Here's three examples of what I mean:
Seattle Times (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002652631_mallshooting29m.html) November 29, 2005:
McKown's parents said last week that witnesses reported he drew his pistol against the shooter, but police said they had not confirmed that account. In a television interview, McKown recalled saying, " 'Hey, put the weapon down — I think I said, 'Son' — I was going with the other hand to [my] jacket, and he obviously was faster on the draw than I was."
The News Tribune (http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/story/5351622p-4844313c.html) Feb. 22, 2006:
Tacoma police say it’s unclear what happened. McKown had a gun but it was never fired, investigators said. They are unsure whether it was drawn. The family bases its belief on what they know of McKown and what they heard some police officers saying.

McKown, 38, was shot at least two times in the left side from a distance of 20 feet, severing his bowel and spinal cord, Schuman said. The exit wound in his lower right back is as big as a softball. He also was shot in the right elbow.

McKown, an assistant manager at Excalibur Cutlery and Gifts in the mall, was on his way to make a deposit when he ran into the gunman, who was walking along the concourse, firing a semi-automatic rifle.
Gun Week (http://www.gunweek.com/2005/mall1210.html) Magazine, 12-10-2005:
McKown, 38, of Tacoma, was the last person shot by the gunman. Licensed to carry, McKown is an assistant manager at the Excalibur Cutlery and Gifts store in the mall. He confronted the gunman and briefly drew his own pistol, but told reporters that he returned the gun to his belt and instead verbally challenged the suspect. He said he told the gunman that he ought to put the rifle down. That’s when the suspect swung the gun around and shot him several times. The wounds apparently have left him partially paralyzed, though McKown has told reporters he expects to walk again. He has some feeling in one leg.
From these, and other accounts, I deduced the following:

1. McKown never fired his gun.
2. McKown attempted to verbally argue with a madman already holding a superior weapon and already engaged in shooting the place (and people) up.
3. McKown hesitated.
4. McKown was not willing to engage in force.
5. McKown didn't have the mentality needed to survive.
6. McKown's lucky to be alive.
7. McKown is a hero, in that he tried to save others, but he is just another untrained guy who lucked out.

It comes down to 1) training. McKown didn't have any. And 2) experience, something else he didn't have.

We can all get training. Whether it be professional training or solitary "by the book" training. What we can't get is the experience. That won't happen until it happens. I have seen the biggest, meanest, baddest, most trained people freeze, we confronted with the "moment of truth." All this means is that until you face the reaper, you simply won't know what you will do. So you train, to the best of your ability for that, however unlikely, event.

For those of us that have been through that looking glass and out the other side, we now have that experience. Even though each and every situation will be different, we can infer from prior experience to know pretty much how we will act or react.

Edison Carter
March 5, 2006, 05:37 PM
Jibjab, I didn't say it would be ok...

Just don't expect a tickertape parade if you shoot
a little girl eating an ice cream. Her parents won't care if you just shot
Osama, you're gonna get sued!

Every bullet has a lawyer attached: The "warning shot" in the air,
the bullet that goes through a window, the bullet that goes right
through the bad guy into the bystander, even the bullet that takes
down the bad guy.

I see a lot of posters who seem to be hoping for an
opportunity to be the "hero".

I plan to survive.

My skin, and my family assets are worth a lot more to me than
20 strangers at the mall.

Let's see some laws which legally protect a "hero" in that situation, and
maybe we won't see the next hero be frozen with fear of the legal aftermath.

EC

WhyteP38
March 5, 2006, 05:46 PM
It seems to me that it breaks down into three, not two, groups. It isn't those who will shoot and those who won't. It's those who will shoot (people who've been there, done that), those who might shoot (those who have made the mental decision, if not the physical one, to shoot but haven't been tested yet), and those who definitely won't shoot (for various reasons).

Those who might shoot can (must) get training to improve their odds of winning a close encounter of the worst kind. I believe lots of people who carry have the capacity to pull the trigger if need be, but would either hesitate or not shoot because somewhere in the back of their minds they question whether they've trained themselves sufficiently. The reality of the situation, rather than the unreality of the typical shooting range, makes them question themselves. In other words, the decision to pull the trigger isn't as much a problem for them as feeling confident about their abilities. The more realistic the training, the more likely they are to perform under pressure (this approach is basically the one the military uses). You won't really know how you'll react if a bad situation occurs, but at least you have a stronger possibility of properly using a gun in self-defense.

Those who definitely won't shoot but still own a gun for self-defense (as opposed to target practice or other entertainment purposes) need to be much more honest with themselves. If you allow extraneous factors--the BG is a "kid," is mentally disturbed, etc.--to outweigh the crucial factors--a person or persons are posing an immediate threat of sexual assault, serious bodily injury, or death against you or others--you should not own a gun for self-defense.

NOTE ADDED: My ex-wife was in the third group. She wanted a shotgun for self-defense for those times when I went on deployment. She was actually afraid of the shotgun and fired it only three or four times, but for some reason she slept better at night knowing it was there. I never could figure out how she convinced herself that having a shotgun she wouldn't use somehow made her safer. Maybe I'm just too pragmatic.

bclark1
March 5, 2006, 06:08 PM
In summary:
"Discretion is the better part of valor."

joneb
March 6, 2006, 12:02 AM
BWOp's you are a patient person, thanks.

EC, Darwinian evolutionist would be proud of your statement ; quote
I plan to survive.

My skin, and my family assets are worth a lot more to me than
20 strangers at the mall.

Something tells me, your not the guy I would want to be stuck in a fox hole with :(

Edison Carter
March 6, 2006, 01:08 AM
That's fine jibjab,

didn't ask, didn't offer.

Neither do I plan to be flinging lead downrange into bystanders,
and expecting casualties to just "suck it up".

I'm NOT a cop, I'm NOT a ninja, I'm NOT GI Joe with the Kung Fu grip.

I have the right to defend myself, I have the LEGAL OBLIGATION
to protect my family. That includes not getting embroiled in defenses
of avoidable SD shootings, or lawsuits by sue-happy bystanders.

If the bystanders in the next mall shooting don't want to get shot,
they should have armed themselves.

Darwinian, yea, whatever.

I don't feel guilty about not being the hero at the last mall shooting when
I wasn't near it, and I won't be guilt tripped about getting my family
out of harms way when I hear gunshots. Running back towards the gunfire?
Tactically and legally foolish, but I won't stop you.

I've had enough trouble come my way, uninvited, without looking
for some "heroic fantasy" to inject myself into.

EC

joneb
March 6, 2006, 01:27 AM
Excuse me EC, I respect your position, I would wager if you were in the mix and armed, with your family in harms way you might post differently ?

Edison Carter
March 6, 2006, 02:47 AM
If my family and I were in the mix, my first priority is their safety,
I get them out of danger if I possibly can.

My second priority is my own. If I get shot to rags, my family does
not hit the insurance lottery. If I get sued, my family gets impoverished
by legal bills.... I doubt I'll see a legal fund established for me.

I've read plenty by Ayoob, and others, and taken CCW classes in Two
states... My understanding of the laws is that shooting in defense of
myself or my family is going to be pretty legally defensible.....
with no guarantees as to outcome.

Defending strangers, or chasing down gunfire, and the legal ground gets shakier.


EC

threegun
March 6, 2006, 07:02 AM
Edison C, If your family was ever going to be on of those 20 strangers in the mall, I would bet that you would trade all your family assets in for the help of a stranger ("hero").

Nobody expects someone to act in a manner that would endanger their own family or strangers, nor is it expected that a civilian seek the source of trouble. What I find hard to swallow is how you can so easily disgard the lives of 20 people that you could have helped. I would have trouble mentally knowing that I could have helped but I didn't and they died as a result. I don't feel like that is being a "wanna be hero" but rather the right thing, the American thing, to do. I certainly would hope that someone helped me and mine if the role was reversed.

#18indycolts
March 6, 2006, 07:06 AM
here is what pertains to me:the indiana constitution........Section 32. The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State.

Mikeyboy
March 6, 2006, 09:12 AM
This is a re-hash of a thread that was started a few days after the incident occured. My take is simple, don't play Rambo with your pistol against a guy with a far superior weapon. Your family comes first, if your with your family and you can get out..GET OUT. If your real close and your have an easy shot at the guy, and your confident you can do it, then do it. The story was the CW carrier froze when he seen the guy and saw he was a baby faced teenager. He thought he could talk the guy down and he thought wrong. Some people think that a CW permit somehow makes them a member of law enforcement. IT DOES NOT. Rushing to the area with your "baby Glock" and trying to close in and engage a guy with a rifle is stupid. Not only can you easily get gunned down at 100 yards, but your fire can injury and kill innocent bystanders. Also your gun and gunfire will just confuse responding LE. If you have a clear, close range shot at the the guy's head and you want to take it, then take it. If the guy is shooting at you and your family, shoot back. Otherwise just because you go to the range and shoot at paper all day does not make you a natural born killer. Do not be critical, and say "I would have done this or that" WHEN YOU NEVER TOOK A LIFE YOURSELF

We are a just a bunch of virgins giving sex advice.

threegun
March 6, 2006, 11:33 AM
Mikeyboy, I'm a recent member and didn't know that this thread was already posted....sorry. I do think it is important to make folks think about this before it happens to them. You have to make up your mind one way or the other if you are willing to use the gun you carry. If your answer is no or I don't know....then don't carry. You have just insured that you won't use it anyway. Those willing to protect themselves should train often, both mentally and tactically, to reduce the chances of freezing up in the face of danger.

I agree with your assesment of what to do. For me the impulse to help is driven purley from the "if the shoe was on the other foot" feeling not any desire to be a hero.

Springfield XD40 Man
March 6, 2006, 11:49 AM
Here's my take on it. If the assailant was mowing down innocents with his rifle, then I would take him out, if I was close enough and had a good shot. If he was just waving the thing around and firing it, I would try to make my escape, not worth the legal aftermath. If innocents were getting killed, then I'd take him out.

Edison Carter
March 6, 2006, 02:46 PM
Talk is cheap, guys.

Stop swinging those macho keyboards and try to hear what I'm saying.

If you carry a gun, and you have not done any more training than the
minimum for your carry license, you are hardly any more use to
anybody than a little old lady with a knitting needle.

If you carry a gun and you have little more than a vague idea
of "if something happens I'll SHOOT the bad guy", you are a fool.

Carrying a gun is a serious responsibility, and perhaps it deserves
some serious THOUGHT? So all I'm saying is, think it through, think
through scenarios, and read up on what happens to people who
draw their weapon in self defense. It isn't always pretty .

If you kill a berserker in the mall, WELL GOOD FOR YOU!

If you see some gangbangers beating each other, cross the street to
intervene, fire a warning shot in the air and put a bullet in a kid's spine
100 yards away, don't be surprised at the consequences.

EC

DBOUNCE1
March 6, 2006, 03:17 PM
if your gonna carry you need to be prepared

threegun
March 6, 2006, 03:39 PM
If no one is willing to act for the fears you have pointed out (well deserved fears BTW) and your family is hurt or killed as a result what then? I agree that anyone who is going to carry should train as much as possible. I just hope that if something similar goes down with my family in the mix, people with a do nothing mindset aren't the only ones at the scene.


EC, Listen this might be an isolated case but it is my only expierience. I train regularly on drawing, front sight location, and firing. The day I thought I was going to have to shoot a would be robber, I drew, found the front sight, and began to squeeze the trigger. Thankfully this idiot had only a bb gun and I was able to recognize it as such before shooting him. He went on to pull and point this bb gun at my coworker, saying after that he wanted to scare him before trying to pawn it. My point is this highly stressful spur of the moment situation happened to me and I reverted automatically to my training. No hesitation, just smooth reaction. I did get the slow motion feeling despite having a sub 1/2 second draw. I also expieirenced some tunneling of my vision and some loss of hearing. All in the blink of an eye. The most important thing is that I didn't freeze. I believe if you are willing to shoot if forced and you train alot, most people will not freeze but rather react.

Dennis2
March 6, 2006, 05:33 PM
Being in a mall or crowded place, that assumes many people are present, both visable and invisable, in the heat of the moment. Even if someone goes on a shooting spree does not relieve you of personal liability. You are an individual acting on your own, not backed by security, law enforcement, likely not officially trained and documented as "saviour". Business and government have the resources and insurance to cover their legal costs (a fortune) to cover greedy lawyers and court costs. Should you shoot and miss / recochett (sp) and hit an innocent by-stander, they will own everything you have in court. In addition, you will spend many days with court proceedings because of your involvement whether absolved or not. You could be a "hero" at that moment, but human nature will drag you ass to court if everything was not picture perfect. Personally, I would not intervine unless myself and/or family were in immidiate danger. Just something to chew on...

threegun
March 6, 2006, 06:01 PM
Dennis2, I completely understand your point however if it was your family in harms way would you want them helped? Thats my problem. I would want the help for mine thus I feel obligated to help if I can without jeopardizing family or other innocents. I will not actively seek tthe source of trouble as that is law enforcments job.

newcastlejudo
March 6, 2006, 06:26 PM
The military had the same problem in WW1 or 2 and then in Korea. Something like 0nly 25-50% of the shots were actually aimed fire. Humans are not naturally going to kill another human. Any species for that matter is not generally going to kill their own..sure there are some differences. The military had to divise a way to desensitize people to killing. For one they switched from bullseye targets to silhouettes (human outline). Human looking targets for bayonette training instead of tires or boxing bags. War games with laser training , ect. First person shootem up games have done a lot for dehumanizing/desensitizing kids in killing other kids/people and yes the military is using them too. There is an article on line somewhere that talks of how the military trains soldiers. Desensitizing oneself to kill sounds like a bad thing but in reality it is a needed if you want to be able to kill someone else with a measure of success when under stress.

quinine
March 6, 2006, 06:37 PM
New poster folks so please bear with.

I totally agree with EC on this matter.

Even in the event that your family is not immediately in harms way, the legal aftermath can destroy your family and their security as effectively as the BG's bullet.

Each of the innocents in this scenario is responsible for their own security.

What I mean is, none of us (since we have taken no oath, or are paid to serve and protect) has an obligation to protect strangers.

And since those others will in all likelihood not provide a dime to your legal defense, your first priority is to your family.

I'm not saying don't respond.

I'm saying survey the situation first.

Will any of you feel great for reacting after the fam loses the home in the civil suit? What about possible jail time and those legal expenses?

What if you accidentally shoot the little girl? Will all see you as the "hero" then? What about your mental health after you shoot the little girl?

"the idiot that thinks he has something to say

threegun
March 7, 2006, 06:42 AM
Quinine, I'll pose you the same question.

If it was your family in harms way would you want them helped? If the answer is yes then how can you not help someone elses? Provided you can without endangering other citizens or your family of course.

LICCW
March 7, 2006, 09:05 AM
I just thought I should mention that, in fact, I am GI Joe with the King Fu grip:D

Glenn E. Meyer
March 7, 2006, 11:14 AM
The answer is what is important to you:

1. A set of values that necessitate helping others even if that puts you at risk.

Thus if you get hurt, that is acceptable as your value set is such that the helping is more important.

2. A ruthless focus on your own survival such that you get through. If others don't - that is not your problem. Also part of this is a ruthless view of my family's well being. Even if they are not there but I become a hero and get shot (like no-shoot mall dude), their lives are disrupted quite negatively. Why should I do that for a stranger?

One can argue about where the value set comes from. Some think it comes from a reasoned philosophy or supernaturally given set of principles. Others think that is part of built in sociobiological principles based on maximizing your gene pool's survival.

Altruism is very complex and it is not just based on the surface views of morality some expound on the Internet.

Even with highly trained and capable folks, the intervention debate is never clear cut. I remember Holschen or Farnham saying (duh), what we say in training and what we do may be quite different at the moment of truth.

We know that all kinds of factors influence the go/no go helping decision.

If I saw a child being kidnapped that's a go. Two adult males pounding on each other, that's a no go. Why? That's the altruism lecture.

I'm working on a project to examine this right now with help from last year the NTI folks and this year the Polite Society gang (many thanks).

threegun
March 9, 2006, 04:15 PM
Glenn, The other day my 9 year old got up and moved several chairs blocking a man in a wheelchair from getting to a table. Was that devine intervention or genetics, or was it hard working parents teaching their kids properly? The first two I don't understand. The proper upbringing I do. Post the outcome of your findings as it sounds very interesting. Would it be possible to ask the participants in your project what kind of upbringing they had? Just to see if it has any relevance.

DunedinDragon
March 12, 2006, 09:40 AM
I would hope if I'm faced with this type of situation I'm able to remove any emotional content from the decision such as harm to a family member. Who knows what prompted this guy to put not fire...it could be anything. None of us know what we are capable of until the moment arrives, but given this scenario I know a couple of things I took away from it.

1) Florida law allows us to stand our ground and fire without risk of legal or civil liabilities if it's reasonable to believe our lives, or the life of anyone else may be at risk. Therefore, in this case it's legally justified to shoot given that I KNEW he was shooting at people in the mall...the law in Florida should protect me both legally and civily.

2) Under no circumstances am I encumbered legally with the responsibility of giving someone a verbal order to "put down their gun." To some degree I see that as compensation for not having backup like a police officer has. Therefore, if I deem (1) to be true, I have no intention of calling attention to myself. I view myself at that point as more of a sniper and intend to use that to my advantage if at all possible.

threegun
March 14, 2006, 05:57 AM
DoubleD, I didn't know that the new law protected us civily as well. Amen to #2. There is no way I'm giving up my position with anything other than.....BANG.

threegun
March 14, 2006, 05:59 AM
Glenn,
Post the outcome of your findings as it sounds very interesting. Would it be possible to ask the participants in your project what kind of upbringing they had? Just to see if it has any relevance.

???????

DunedinDragon
March 14, 2006, 08:00 AM
DoubleD, I didn't know that the new law protected us civily as well.

776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.--

(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term "criminal prosecution" includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.

(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.

(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney's fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).

History.--s. 4, ch. 2005-27.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0776/SEC032.HTM&Title=->2005->Ch0776->Section%20032#0776.032

Pretty kewl, huh????

threegun
March 14, 2006, 10:23 AM
DoubleD, Thanks. It is sickening that the media only report the preceived negatives in the law. I never read the law because I didn't plan on changing my reaction to a threat anyway......I will run first always if safely possible.

Do you know if it protects you from civil penelty brought by and innocent bystander? not that I intend on harming an innocent

Double Naught Spy
March 14, 2006, 08:30 PM
Edison, it isn't about being keyboard commandos or the like. It is about information. Mckown made poor use of information that he should have known long before he was shot at Tacoma Mall. If he actually understood his legal situation, then maybe he would not have stood up without a gun and yelled at the guy.

His story from his own words is posted here.
http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/story/5363616p-4853200c.html

Note that McKown apaprently had made up his mind long ago to defend others. In fact, the clasims he carried a gun to defend others (but not himself??).

I don't know which is tougher, trying to be able to pull a trigger to shoot somebody who is shooting people around you or being brave or stupid enough to confront the gunman without a drawn gun. Personally, McKown's story sounds a lot more like post hoc self glorification and excuses than reality. From what was shown on the TV of the mall and the positions of McKown and the shooter, much of the time the shooter would not have had people behind him that McKown was concerned about shooting with an errant round. So that doesn't fly. His claim of not knowing the law doesn't fly either. His statements that we was armed to protect others and that he tried to go after the gunman after he was shot seems to be for attention so that he can be a hero.

Here are my comments from here.... http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=189562&page=2&highlight=mckown


As near as I can tell from McKown's own statements, he should be the poster boy for NOT how to respond as a CCW person. In reading McKown's accounts, I am having trouble figuring out anything he did correctly. Heck, from his own accounts, it does not appear that the gunman even knew McKown had a gun as McKown was dropped by the gunman before he had a chance to draw it to use. Sure, he drew it early on, then tucked it in his belt because he didn't want to get in trouble for brandishing in the mall. This was legal information he should have known as a person licensed to carry.

You know, this is one of those examples where McKown probably had a little knownledge that screwed with his mind. McKown stupidly let a fear of legal consequence for brandishing override he thoughts to have the gun out and ready to use in a dynamic shooting situation. I will never understand why people are more fearful of potential/possible future minor legal problems than they are in fear for their own lives.

So the gunman shot McKown and continued to shoot McKown as McKown fell. It sounds like the gunman had better training than McKown and continued his followup shots until he felt McKown was neutralized.

I don't see where McKown or the other supposed CCW folks who didn't draw their guns either actually put up any resistence such that it caused the gunman to change tactics or stop shooting.

I really liked the part how he had planned to crawl after the gunman, but those other people stopped him. I am sure that after being shot several times and crippled, he would have been a force with which to contend, so much more power than before he was shot.

Anthony2
March 14, 2006, 10:51 PM
O.k. it is safe to say everyone speaking on this topic, knows the importance of shot placement...:)

my question is: if say I were to shoot said BG once in such a manner that a shot through the skull ends the confrontation, with the round stopped safely in terra firma.

What could be the ramifications of this?

In my mind the threat is neutralized and no innocents were injured, problem solved......Am I the only one who thinks this is an adequate solution that should require no further thought:confused:

DunedinDragon
March 15, 2006, 03:49 AM
There's no doubt that we can all be armchair quarterbacks in this situation and come up with a better approach to handling this situation, but we weren't there and we didn't experience the situation, so we can only guess at what our reactions would have been.

I do think what this situation points out is that having a CCW carries with it a responsibility to be well-trained, and not just well trained in shooting, but well trained in all the dimensions that come into play in a situation like this. A lot of gun owners are crack shots, but don't have a clue about the specifics of self-defense laws in their state. That's every bit as much a part of training as learning how to shoot well or understanding the difference between cover and concealment. And that, from my reading of this account, was the weak link in this guy's training. He just wasn't sure. And with guys like Mas Ayoob escalating the fear factor about the ramifications of being in a shootout, it's no wonder that some people might have second thoughts and hesitate when they shouldn't. I'm not suggesting that Mr. Ayoob doesn't have valid points. He does. But he speaks in generalities whereas each state has specific boundaries and ramifications that need to be well understood in order for a person to be confident in their actions.

9mm_prn
March 16, 2006, 01:54 PM
I have been unfortunate enough to have been in the middle of 2 seperate shootings.

One was some yahoos chasing a Subaru Brat full of kids. Apparently the kid's in the Brat gave the wrong hillbilly's the finger. They followed these kids for over 20 miles and into town where they had cornered them in an apartment complex parking lot. It was a hot night and the windows to my apartment where open so I could hear the sounds of the car chase in the parking lot really well. I got up and ran out the front door just in time to see a guy unloading his shotgun into the kids that where riding in the back of the brat. When you see something like this your first response is one of disbelief.

Everything becomes sort of slow mo and you just react in whatever way your flight or flight response takes you. When you see innocents being shot you want to do whatever will make it stop. For me all I could do was yell at the guy shooting. I did not own a gun at this point in my life but I would have given anything for one at that moment. The guy with the shotgun took a couple of shots at me but fortunately for me he was using birdshot which was not very affective at the distances we had between us. It did sting like a MOFO though. Anyway somehow during the time the guy was shooting in my direction the driver of the Brat jumped a curb and took off the back way out of the apartment complex parking lot. The cops showed up taped everything off asked me if I was OK and took my name and a statement and I never heard anything else about it.

The 2nd was right before thanksgiving and I was shopping with my Mom and my neice. While stopped in traffic the passenger in a car stopped ahead of us got out with a pistol in hand and shot the hell out of the guy in the car next to him. My mom freaked. I told her to get the hell out of there (she was driving) and at the same time I was pushing my neices head down below the seat so she couldn't see and so she didn't get hit if this guy was going to start shooting at us next. We were able to hop the curb and escape through a business' driveway. The next day we read in the paper that this was a mexican gang related shooting and that amaizingly the guy that was shot several times lived.

1st incident I would have and should have fired if I would have had a gun. Now when I think about the girl screaming as the guy was shooting them it really ****** me off I wasn't packing at that time.

2nd incident although I would not have changed my course of action (or lack of, since we were not this shooters target) just makes my blood boil. For two reasons, one that this POS gangster would put so much fear into my family by making them witness his attempt to murder a man. And two, that I had still not gotten my CCL even after witnessing the 1st shooting.

It has been many years since those shootings. Now I carry 24/7 and feel guilty if I am not training at least 1X a week (notice I didn't say target practice). I am cartainly not looking for any opportunity to shoot anyone but I have made a concious decision that I will shoot untill the threat is no longer a threat. I am aware of the consequences of my actions and will make it my highest priority to prevent any harm that I may unintentionally inflict on innocent bystanders during an attempt to defend my life, the lives of those in my family or when the lives of innocent women or children are jeopardized.

Anthony2
March 17, 2006, 09:28 PM
9mm_prn-

A reasonable point of view that no one on TFL or anywhere for that matter should ever degrade you on...You did the best you could in the situation you were given and should be commended on such.:D :) :D

My question is this: If you or I witness a life threatening situation, i.e. shots being fired or a firearm being used in a crime, can we protect the innocents without personal ramifications?

I personally look at it as ramifications be damned...save a life and worry about the rest later.

I just understood it to be that if you or a family member are not the immediate victim/target of violence, you are expected to retreat and call the police....at least this is the impression I have been given in my state.

marks655
March 17, 2006, 11:16 PM
I moved to a really red state years ago where $10 and three signatures of friends willing to lie about me could get me a permit.

I went right out and got the permit and a cheap Makarov/shoulder holster. Then I started thinking about when I might actually need it - and realized that if I pulled it out I had to be ready and willing to use it - that is, be willing to kill another person. I also concluded that the chances of being confronted with a situation requiring me to pull out a gun and try to kill someone had only occurred when I served in Viet Nam, and for the remaining 55 years of my life, even the worst situations I encountered were not serious enough to take human life.

I soon decided it didn't make any sense for me to carry. So I sold the Makarov and used the money to buy .223 ammo to shoot Nutria. Turned out to be a good decision. I'm alive and well, have not shot at anyone since 1970,and have murdered hundreds of Nutria.

T_man357
March 23, 2006, 06:53 AM
Poor guy was probably thinking about the possible consquences of shooting and killing a bad guy through the eyes of liberal..You kill a bag guy, you saved some lives...But you still killed a bad guy, with a gun no less. civil suit here you come...And by the time the poor guy reached the end of that thought the BG shot him....I hate even thinking about stuff like that but lets face it the liberals want our guns and they don't reall care how they get them.

threegun
March 23, 2006, 07:11 AM
M665, I was once told that the price of a gun was cheap. After some arguing the salesman told me that when the time came that I needed this gun and didn't have it, at that moment, I would give all my valuables including the shirt off my back for it. So get it now while its cheap. I transfered that logic to carrying. I may never need it but when I do, I will wish I had it, or be glad I did. I hope we never have the need.

9mm_prn
March 23, 2006, 03:23 PM
Anthony2, I appreciate the very kind words. Thank you.

I find myself thinking about those kids in the Brat from time to time and wonder what happened to them. All I knew was what the cop could tell me while he was taking my statement. I should have called him back to find out or checked the papers. I am still not sure why I wasn't called as a witness. :confused:

To answer your question, I know that the laws vary from state to state but no matter what, we can be assured that every attempt will be made to make us look incompetent no matter what reasons we may have for using our guns in the defense of ourselves or others. For myself, I agree with you. I'll try to use my best judgement and deal with the consequences if I do decide to shoot. IMO it's better than living with not doing anything when you possibly could have.

delta58
March 23, 2006, 09:18 PM
It's already been said but I think it is important so I will say it again.
#1 No one knows how they will react under fire until they are under fire.
#2 If you train enough you won't think about how to react you will just do it.
Bear in mind, some will still fail, but if you are trained the chances of this are greatly decreased.
When I was in the army I couldn't figure out why we always did the same thing over and over and over again. But I finally figured out that the reason they did that is when the doo doo hit the fan you didn't think you just did it. Bottom line is training and mental preparation and the only tools you can depend on when someting bad happens. You need to make the descion to shoot way before you pick up the gun.