Could you have stopped it?

[JJ45]

I wonder how many are contemplating, like I am, whether they could have ended either of the heinous crimes committed in Texas and Ohio?

This should be studied by any armed citizen because it could happen any time, anywhere. What tactics would you employ?

It is my opinion that those criminals only advantage was surprise, considering they were probably inept in the most effective use of firearms.

So it is certain that the main concern of the armed (or un-armed) citizen is to be acutely aware of one's surroundings...one can't really plan ahead because you never know where and how it might come.

[DaveBj]

I would like to think I would have at least tried. These incidents have certainly turned me from a non-carrier back to a near-full-time carrier. And the last paragraph stresses an important point -- situational awareness.

D

[BarryLee]

The reality is pulling your gun and seeking out the shooter might be a very dangerous thing to do. In the confusion you might be mistaken for the shooter by law enforcement or another armed civilian. Also, if you spot someone shooting how do you know for certain it isn't someone actually engaging the bad guy. Yes, if the person was right in front of you and the situation was very clear do what you can. If not keep it holstered and get away.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by JJ45

I wonder how many are contemplating, like I am, whether they could have ended either of the heinous crimes committed in Texas and Ohio?

It is my opinion that those criminals only advantage was surprise, considering they were probably inept in the most effective use of firearms.

What leads you to suggest that?

The Ohio shooter killed nine and wounded 27 in less than one minute. The Garlic Festival shooter killed three and wounded fifteen in about three minutes. The El Paso shooter was apparently specifically targeting people who looked "Hispanic." He stalked the aisles looking for victims who generally fit that description. He was able to kill 20 and wound another 26 in however much time he had. I've not seen any mention of how many of his shots were hits and how many were misses. More to the point, I have seen nothing in the reports of any of the three recent mass shooting to even suggest that the shooters were "inept." I think going up against a shooter armed with a rifle when you only have a handgun would not be a good time to assume that the guy with the rifle is "inept."

Personally, I'd assume he was Carlos Hathcock reincarnated. If I had no choice, I'd shoot to defend myself and hope for the best. If I had a good shot at him from behind or from his blind side, I'd take it. Otherwise, I'd be voting with my feet.

[DaleA]

One thing I think is missing from reports of these tragic mass shootings is perspective:

"What are the chances of dying in a 'mass shooting'?"

"What are the chances of dying in an auto accident?"

"What are the chances of dying of a heart attack?"

"What are the chances of dying in a plane crash?"

"What are the chances of being hit by lightning?"

Pandering to the hysteria about "gun violence" one EMT worker says he has equipped his 12 year old son with a "bleeding kit", you know, so he would be able to stop his bleeding after being shot in a school shooting (or presumably someone else's). Note: I am all in favor of being prepared for emergencies but IMhO statements like this are just tossed out there to advance the gun control agenda.

P.S. Seems I should make better friends with Google search. After I posted I found this list of chances of dying via different causes:
https://www.businessinsider.com/us-g...tistics-2018-3

[2damnold4this]

Yeah, the Ohio shooter shot 36 people in less than 35 seconds. I'm not sure how much of that was skill or circumstances but there had to be at least some skill involved.

In any case, the police officers were able to quickly and successfully engage him and end the threat.

[DaleA]

the police officers were able to quickly and successfully engage him and end the threat.

And STILL the "good guy with a gun" statement is mocked and derided.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by JJ45

I wonder how many are contemplating, like I am, whether they could have ended either of the heinous crimes committed in Texas and Ohio?....

Some things to consider:

1. What are your skills? Are your skills up to the task of dealing with an armed, probably pathological, violent person in a rapidly unfolding tumultuous situation in a crowd of innocent persons. Under the circumstances do you really have the ability to do more good than harm?
   
   
2. Is law enforcement on the scene? Both Dayton and Gilroy were dealt with quickly by law enforcement, and being visibly armed under such circumstances is a good way to get shot by mistake.
   
   
3. Under the exact circumstances are there things you could do that would be more helpful than trying to engage the active shooter? For example, could you do more good by trying to get as many people as you can to safety.

Every situation is different.

[briandg]

At what point would "stopped it" be considered an accurate statement? If I neutralized the attacker before he knocked off for the day and went for a cold brew, or would it have to be during the heat of the combat? When a man with a rifle goes bananas and starts shooting, I'm not sure if we can actually use the term "stop the attack" in any but a very loose manner.

I very seriously doubt that I could do that. I might be able to get a hit in and slow the guy down, or distract him. But to actually shut an active shooter down while seriously underequipped would require a lot of things, one of them is to do so while the shooter is deeply distracted. As far as getting at a mall rifleman and putting him down during christmas, I' might as well try to win the lottery. I can't do that.

SWAT officers fail to control situations while in teams and under controlled circumstances. Those officers are often killed.

It would be a great thing if someone could search a database and determine which of the numerous mass killings throughout the past forty years during which mass killings became 'normal' were ended before they reached a natural conclusion and the fullest of consequences.

for example, the miscreants at columbine had also brought primitive bombs with them and intended to set fires, iirc, but they were 'stopped' before they did any more harm.

In fort hood there were 46 injuries including 13 dead. Since he was still shooting when he was dropped by a defender, we can say that he was 'stopped' but it doesn't really feel that way...

[JJ45]

Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca

What leads you to suggest that?

The Ohio shooter killed nine and wounded 27 in less than one minute. The Garlic Festival shooter killed three and wounded fifteen in about three minutes. The El Paso shooter was apparently specifically targeting people who looked "Hispanic." He stalked the aisles looking for victims who generally fit that description. He was able to kill 20 and wound another 26 in however much time he had. I've not seen any mention of how many of his shots were hits and how many were misses. More to the point, I have seen nothing in the reports of any of the three recent mass shooting to even suggest that the shooters were "inept." I think going up against a shooter armed with a rifle when you only have a handgun would not be a good time to assume that the guy with the rifle is "inept."

Personally, I'd assume he was Carlos Hathcock reincarnated. If I had no choice, I'd shoot to defend myself and hope for the best. If I had a good shot at him from behind or from his blind side, I'd take it. Otherwise, I'd be voting with my feet.

"probably inept"..."most effective use", probably means I don't know for sure . I recall hearing from one of the talking heads that one of the shooters got his "training" or knowledge of weapons from watching video games. But you know how that goes.

Could possibly have been much worse but these criminals also had the advantage of a conceived plan and again, the biggest advantage of all, which would be surprise.

[pete2]

It would depend on the circumstances whether I'd engage or not. If my family was with me, their safety would come first, getting them to safety, might mean running, might mean shooting. By my self, if close I think I would shoot. My carry is a 642 revolver so I'd have to be close.

[TailGator]

As others have said, assuming a shooter is inept is done at your peril. And as for surprise being the shooter's "only advantage," also a repeated no; taking a pistol or revolver against a rifle is playing a bad hand. In both instances I give LEOs a lot of credit for the courage and resolve to go in in the manner they did, and we are blessed that there were no LEO casualties.

[TunnelRat]

I think calling the shooter inept given the evidence is naive. Inept is a strong word from my standing.

If I had a clear exit for me and my family, no I wouldn't intervene until I had secured them first. If that makes me a coward I've made my peace with that. If that person is between me and any possible exit then what choice do I have? Would I be successful? I don't know how I can answer that definitively. I've done 20+ courses under the instruction of people ranging from career law enforcement to Green Berets. This has involved hundreds of hours of my time and thousands of rounds of ammo, not to mention the many more such hours practicing skills at the range and rounds shot there. One course was a three day event specifically on Active Shooters including a day of force on force with UTM pistols where I was walked into situations with a bag over my head and had to respond as soon as the bag was removed (taught by Todd Rassa, but I think he's sadly done teaching). I've had the opportunity to sit in on after action reports/presentations from both the Washington Naval Yard shooting and the Las Vegas shooting. All of this, and my answer to you is I don't know.

My honest advice would be this. Have a plan wherever you go with your family. This includes having an exit, defining whose responsibility is what in terms of children, calling police, etc, and define a meeting place in the event of separation. Maintain some level of situational awareness both for yourself and to be a good witness so that you can relay information to first responders. If you see something concerning point it out to security, absolutely be "that guy". As difficult as it might be try to think and be careful of herd mentality when exiting. If you can, get medical training. This is an area I am sadly deficient in. You're likely to use this training even more than your firearms and not just for active shooters. There is a series out there called Stop the Bleed by DHS that doesn't take long to get through and is at least something. If you can't do a small trauma kit on your person then have supplies accessible.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by briandg

It would be a great thing if someone could search a database and determine which of the numerous mass killings throughout the past forty years during which mass killings became 'normal' were ended before they reached a natural conclusion and the fullest of consequences.

By the above, I assume you mean that "stopped" would apply if the shooter was caused to stop shooting sooner than he would have if he had not been in some way confronted.

• Trolley Square Mall -- Shooter confronted by off-duty police officer. Officer only had a compact semi-auto with 6 rounds, but he interrupted the shooter until the cavalry arrived
• New Life Church -- Shooter killed 2 in the parking lot, was killed by former policewoman as he entered the lobby. Shooter never reached the sanctuary
• Virginia Tech -- Shooter committed suicide when the police arrived
• Northern Illinois University -- Shooter committed suicide before police arrived
• American Civic Association -- Shooter committed suicide when police arrive
• Fort Hood I (2009) -- Despite the number of casualties, the shooter was still hunting for victims when the police arrived and engaged him
• Aurora Theater -- Shooter had ended the attach before police arrived
• Washington Navy Yard -- Despite massive confusion and various agencies having difficulty coordinating their response, the shooter was interrupted by the arrival of police. Thereafter, shooter engaged with armed police rather than shooting unarmed occupants of the building
• Sandy Hook School -- Shooter committed suicide when police arrived
• Fort Hood II (2014) -- Shooter committed suicide when confronted by an armed MP
• San Bernardino -- Shooters left the scene before police arrived. Shooters were killed four hours later, after a car chase and shootout
• Pulse Nightclub -- Shifted to a hostage situation when police arrived. Police ultimately breached the rear wall and killed the shooter in a shootout
• Harvest Festival -- Shooter committed suicide when police arrived at his hotel room

Draw your own conclusions

for example, the miscreants at columbine had also brought primitive bombs with them and intended to set fires, iirc, but they were 'stopped' before they did any more harm.

They didn't exactly "also" bring bombs. The two propane tank bombs were the primary plan, and would have likely killed hundreds of people if they had exploded. Fortunately, the dweebs were lousy bomb makers, so they resorted to Plan B -- the guns.

[spacemanspiff]

It is my opinion that those criminals only advantage was surprise, considering they were probably inept in the most effective use of firearms

The body counts would tend to disagree with you there.

When I go to Walmart, Costco, or the local grocery store I can tell you that I am not scanning each and every aisle for potential bad guys. I make note of the sketchy looking folks that both plainclothes loss prevention as well as uniformed rent-a-security personnel are tailing thru the store. But the main area I do keep a scan of is when I am in the checkout lane. That's about the only time my head is on a swivel.

If I am out at 1am, well nowadays that just doesn't happen, but ok, 10-15 years ago when I would be going out on a weekend night, if I was getting my drink on, I definitely wasn't always situationally aware. The 12 years I spent working bar security, being pretty much the only group of the bars employees that were NOT under the influence, that's different. Our job was to be situationally aware.

But lets delve into this a little bit, see what we are really dealing with.

Show of hands, how many of you out there with your semi-automatic rifles can get rapid hits on paper at less than 25 yards? Out to 50 yards? I don't mean taking aimed shots, I mean just doing a mag dump. Nearly every time I go to the range, I see fellow shooters that are proud of their marksmanship, dumping a mag into the target stand, 24 inches high, 18 inches wide. that's 432 square inches. Whats the ongoing joke we make at the range? "Close enough for government work"? A person may not be cutting cute little clover leafs, but that doesn't mean they are 'inept'. And their ineptness still puts peoples lives at risk.

What does the guncontrol lobby tell us about the features of these semiautomatic rifles? If it has that pistol grip, "it makes it easy to spray fire from the hip, because its deadlier that way". If it has that collapsible shoulder stock, "it makes it easy to shoot aimed fire comfortably from the shoulder, because aimed fire is deadlier". Those are literal quotes by the way.

Could I have stopped it? I do not carry a gun because I believe myself to be some superhero or crime fighter. I carry to protect myself and my loved ones. If the gunshots are going off, my first instinct will not be 'engage', it will be 'seek cover, get my family safe'.

I wish I never have to find out what I would do in such a situation.

[davidsog]

If the gunshots are going off, my first instinct will not be 'engage', it will be 'seek cover, get my family safe'.

I think that is a sound outlook. Running around with a gun in hand looking for someone to shoot is exactly the description every LEO in the area is running towards.

They might not bother to ask before shooting despite Deputy Dawg's good training.

Nope, barricade, protect your family, and I would go so far as to protect anyone else I could as I moved my family to safety.

If everyone was doing that then chances are "a good guy with a gun" would be engaging the shooter and the less "soft targets" these sicko's would find. There is a reason why the mass shootings are at things like Garlic Festivals and not at Gun Shows.

The more the left makes CCL holders and those knowledgeable about guns seem crazy or fringe, the less people will actually carry, the less chances there will be a "good guy with a gun" at the scene.

[FireForged]

I am not a public sentinel but I do know exactly what I am willing to do in some very narrow circumstances and what I am capable of doing generally.

I am not likely to go running around looking for the badguy but if he is relatively close to me and I can quickly manage get good position on him, I will probably try to stop him in order to defend others. If I am directly threatened by the badguy I will respond regardless of the risk. I have long since decided that I am not going to allow someone to place me in life threatening jeopardy with complete impunity, I am going to do something to stop it.

[Nick_C_S]

Could I have stopped it?

Probably not. But I like to believe - at least - that I would have tried.

I do know this: If I wasn't armed (I'm a CCW holder), I definitely wouldn't.

[Blue Duck]

Well, this is where, I hope, more CCW carriers, will put a little more effort into, learning how to carry a gun that has some decent stopping power and is accurate enough to take out a threat at more then a few feet or yards.

I don't see much that can be done to stop the next sicko from carrying out another mass shooting. Do we need an assault rifle ban? I personally doubt it would make any difference. Is there too much violence on TV and in the video games available and played so much these days? I think maybe so, but will it matter?

And the cops can't be everywhere, so this is going to continue to happen off and on.

The only thing that can be done, outside of a total lock down, and other means of controlling everyone is a swift counter attack by a competent person who is in close proximity to the perp at the start of the crime. This is where I think the presence everywhere of competent armed citizens, willing to engage, is so important. The problem is few are really competent, and even fewer are willing to put their butt on the line, and simply run and hide instead, like the rest of the sheep do.

That's my take on it.

[USNRet93]

Run away from gunfire, find a place to secure me and mine..be vigilant if the shooter threatened me and mine..BUT, I'm there to protect me and mine..I am not law enforcement and won't be leaving my family to 'engage' the bad guy with a S-A rifle..

The more the left makes CCL holders and those knowledgeable about guns seem crazy or fringe, the less people will actually carry, the less chances there will be a "good guy with a gun" at the scene.

Watch the news? Any of them on the political spectrum?'Mental illness' has been mentioned about every 30 seconds..as it applies to these shooters. I haven't seen anything about a person who has a CCWP, or is knowledgeable about 'guns', being described as 'crazy or fringe'..If anything these frequent and getting more frequent shootings coupled with a VERY divisive society today, encourages MORE EDC, not less, IMHO..I know after this weekends events, I will not leave the house w/o carrying..and carry in my house more frequently.

[5whiskey]

Am I going to be the lone voice here who doesn’t give the generic “hole up and hide with gun facing outward” politically correct for a CCW holder comment?

There is a mass shooter taking innocent lives, you’ve heard several shots fired and the shooting continues. You have a firearm, and could possibly save lives by acting quickly. You could also be shot first. You are not obligated to do anything, legally, but as a decent human being with an ounce of bravery do you at least try!?

There is no shame with protecting the family and staying with them. There is no shame in not feeling confident enough to engage. Let’s say you’re alone and you are quite the accomplished shooter, plus you have the courage to engage. Do you let the fear of police misidentifying you hinder your ability to potentially save human lives, maybe even children’s lives? I hope not.

We have an inclination here to err to the side of avoid armed conflict at all costs, just because you CCW doesn’t mean you should look for a fight. Well generally I agree with that. This isn’t like walking the other way when the potential would-be mugger approaches you. That situational awareness prevention tactic is out the window. Bullets are flying and kids are dying. Being the good little “avoid confrontation at all costs” CCW holder and “being a good witness” is much less appropriate here than when the local stop and rob gets hit for the 3rd time this year. A robber usually just wants to get some cash and run without hurting anyone. This guy was here to kill as many people as possible.


OP to directly answer your question, I think I COULD have stopped it. I also COULD have been shot. Depends on where I was in relation to shooter, available cover between me and him, etc.

[zincwarrior]

Some goober with an Unkle Mike's holster and a LCP .380 is going to go up against an AK or AR pistol armed dude wearing body armor. Ok. unless the BG is RIGHT THERE thats a bad idea.

I shoot three to four competitions a month. I am on a marksmanship team (they'll take anyone evidently). Not bragging, just stating where I am coming from. I know what my strengths and limitations are and know with my M&Pc I am at a severe disadvantage against a rifle firing mass shooter (or more if this is a Mumbai style attack).

If I am in a store / mall /hotel I am going to get my family to an exit in the back. I will attempt to secure that exit so others can get out too. I am not going to engage unless I have to.

The exception to this is church. I am usually in the lobby. I have plotted out positions and I am armed substantially differently there.

[USNRet93]

OP to directly answer your question, I think I COULD have stopped it. I also COULD have been shot. Depends on where I was in relation to shooter, available cover between me and him, etc.

You could have also stopped it if you were the
“hole up and hide with gun facing outward” person..with your family behind you, if he came around you.

BUT holing up with gun facing outward isn't cowardice nor lack of confidence but a reasoned response to a situation...

IMHO, of course.

[Skans]

It's one thing to take a rifle and shoot unarmed people who aren't suspecting anything. However, once someone starts shooting back at the cowardly shooter, that pressure likely will cause the lone shooter to pause, take cover, and make mistakes. I think it is worth it to shoot back if you have the skills and ability to do so.

[davidsog]

There is no shame in not feeling confident enough to engage. Let’s say you’re alone and you are quite the accomplished shooter, plus you have the courage to engage. Do you let the fear of police misidentifying you hinder your ability to potentially save human lives, maybe even children’s lives? I hope not.

Tactically, running around looking for a bad guy to shoot for a CCL holder is stupid. You are not equipped or trained and most likely will only create even more confusion in an already confusing situation.

The cops shooting you takes away from their response times to the actual crime being committed.

During the Orlando Airport shooting, there was an armed civilian individual who was not trained for the situation at hand who "moved to the sound of gunfire". He ran weapon exposed through the airport looking for the shooter. He almost got himself shot and the cops ended up spending time detaining him, trying to figure out if he was the shooter, instead of dealing with the actual shooter. Once more, panic'd civilians running away from him ran towards the real shooter.

He took time and resources away and slowed down the response time resulting in more casualties.

You do not know what is going on except in your immediate sector. A stupid decision on your part trying to be a misguided hero can end up causing more deaths instead of saving lives. Once more, while good samaritan laws will protect most CCL holders in defense of another life.....

A one man flow drill thru the mall is going to be hard to justify especially when one considers the innocents under cover you will displace.

Fireforged says:
I am not likely to go running around looking for the badguy but if he is relatively close to me and I can quickly manage get good position on him, I will probably try to stop him in order to defend others. If I am directly threatened by the badguy I will respond regardless of the risk. I have long since decided that I am not going to allow someone to place me in life threatening jeopardy with complete impunity, I am going to do something to stop it.

Very common sense and a good general plan. IN this case, you are not advocating running around looking for the bad guy.

Outside of that, one can "What IF" this scenario to death.