Mass Shooting In New Zealand

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

If we really want the "good guy with a gun" to be demonstrated when these tragedies occur, we need two things to happen.

1. Gun owners need to get licensed.

2. License holders need to carry ALL THE TIME when it's legal.

3. People who carry need to get enough training that they feel competent to engage a serious threat if the need arises.

4. People who carry and who feel competent to engage, need to carry a firearm that has some reasonable chance of being effective in these kinds of scenarios. The low-capacity belly gun that might make perfect sense for general self-defense is a terrible choice for engaging a shooter at distances of tens of yards as might be encountered in a large public building.

1. A lot of gun owners are licensed.

2. I think this is the crux of the issue. There need to be a LOT fewer places where carry is not allowed. Simple example: I had an appointment at the VA hospital this afternoon. The VA does not allow weapons anywhere on their property, so even locking a carry pistol in the car while in the building is verboten. So I left my pistol at home. I stopped at a Burger King on the way to the hospital, and I stopped to buy gas on the way home. So the VA regulation against possession of a firearm on their campus resulted in my making two other unarmed stops at places where I would normally have been carrying.

My home town is the same way. We have a local ordinance prohibiting possession of firearms on any town-owned property. That means unless someone is willing to park far away from a public building -- and then leave their carry gun locked in the car -- it's not [legally] possible to even have a gun in the car when going to the town hall, public works department, library, senior center, police department, fire department, or town office annex. We can't just park in the town-owned lots adjacent to the above enumerated town buildings/offices, because the adjacent lots are all owned by the town.

3. It's arguable how much training is actually needed to engage a threat sufficiently to interrupt a shooter's agenda.

4. See #3. Even a shooter with a rifle is likely to duck if there's someone at the other end of the corridor lobbing lead spitballs at him. Look up the Trolley Square Mall incident in Salty Lake City.

[rickyrick]

Those are some good points there AB, there’s a lot of factors preventing an armed person from being at the scene of these types of crimes.
I feel a licensed person should be able to carry their weapon anywhere, not just between no gun zones. It’s a real pain to arm, disarm, arm yourself again and disarm... then whoops there’s a no gun sign at that mall so back to the car again.

We all know Dr Hupp’s story where she left her gun in the car because she didn’t want to get into trouble.

An armed civilian could end a mass shooting, but I stand by my opinion that it’s highly unlikely that it would happen.
Not every licensed ccw’er carries. It’s also not my job to defend the public or secure malls and places of worship

[Andy Blozinski]

"I feel a licensed person should be able to carry their weapon anywhere, not just between no gun zones."
I think it's a really bad idea to have emotional and also possibly drunk sports fans packing firearms at a sporting event.

[JohnKSa]

3. It's arguable how much training is actually needed to engage a threat sufficiently to interrupt a shooter's agenda.

That's not really what I meant.

3. People who carry need to get enough training that they feel competent to engage a serious threat if the need arises.

Training builds confidence in addition to skills. Sometimes it's the confidence that's most important. The guy who engaged the Tyler courthouse shooter was a very experienced shooter and a trainer--he had a lot of confidence--maybe too much. It got him killed, after all. But he did make a difference, and a HUGE part of that was having enough confidence to grab his pistol and run to the scene.

4. See #3. Even a shooter with a rifle is likely to duck if there's someone at the other end of the corridor lobbing lead spitballs at him. Look up the Trolley Square Mall incident in Salty Lake City.

Again, the Tyler Courthouse shooting is a prime example. You have a good guy with enough training and experience that gave him the confidence to run to engage a man armed with a rifle.

Agreed, sometimes it's a no-win situation. A person with a pistol wasn't going to be able to do much against the clock-tower shooter or the Vegas shooter, but even when shooter can make a difference, they have to have the confidence to step up and one really good way to develop that confidence is training.

It’s also not my job to defend the public or secure malls and places of worship

You are absolutely correct, and I'm not promoting the idea that people who conceal carry have an obligation to provide armed security for the public.

What I am saying is that if we want to see good guys with guns making a difference in a lot of these shootings, then things will have to change. I'm providing a list of things that would have to change.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

Agreed, sometimes it's a no-win situation. A person with a pistol wasn't going to be able to do much against the clock-tower shooter or the Vegas shooter, ...

Realistically, from the ground a trained shooter with a rifle wasn't going to make much difference. In the case of the Texas Tower shooting, how many people were on the ground with rifles and were unable to neutralize the shooter? In the end, it required someone sneaking onto the roof, and at that point a pistol could probably have done the job. (I don't remember the specifics well enough to be certain of that -- how close did the good guy get before he took out the shooter?)

Las Vegas? Uphill across that distance? I doubt even a Marine Corps sniper could have taken that shooter out. In fact, any trained shooter probably wouldn't take the shot, because it was a hotel full of hundreds of innocent people. The consequences of missing by even a couple of feet were enormous.

[JohnKSa]

The section you quoted wasn't even the point of that paragraph that contained it, and certainly not the point of the post.

Let me try again:

There are times when it's a no-win situation (And although we might not agree on precisely what those times may be, let's not argue the minutia because it's pointless--those are the times we don't want to talk about because in a discussion about armed citizens making a difference, it makes no sense to focus on the scenarios where the targeted citizens are so far behind the eight-ball that it's highly unlikely they can do anything constructive) BUT, sometimes it's not a no-win situation and when a shooter can make a difference, they have to have the confidence to step up. One really good way to develop that confidence is training.

[USNRet93]

Originally Posted by PhotonGuy

Because they're not well trained enough. If you're going to carry a gun, in my opinion you should get good training so you can effectively use it.

Certainly agree with that. Once again, my 'CCWP' training was a waste of time BUT it did fill that 'square' and get me the 'certificate'. Government mandated anything seems like a four letter word but it would be nice if CCWP training was more standardized, more effective..at least on par with what is needed to get a driver's license(written test and driving test)...IMHO. Altho I agree with 2A gun ownership type arguments, I don't see CCW as a 'right'..

[Double Naught Spy]

Instead, far too many people get their license and don't even shoot again until they need to requalify a few years later. Twice, we had guys show up and unload carry ammo from their guns that they had loaded into their guns after the last time they qualified. The guns had remained unshot over that period of time.

Some more dedicated self defense people get out to the range once or twice a year to reaffirm their shooting prowess. They will slow fire at a paper plate or bullseye target. As a novelty, a few might actually splurge and buy a silhouette target and try to make some specific shots.

In the vast citizenry of people who own guns for self defense and those that sometimes carry them for self defense, they don't get any form of advanced training and they don't regularly shoot in a manner to maintain any sort of actual gun defense proficiency.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by USNRet93

Altho I agree with 2A gun ownership type arguments, I don't see CCW as a 'right'..

The Second Amendment says the people have a "right to keep and bear arms." Does your copy of the Constitution not include the word "bear"?

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Realistically, from the ground a trained shooter with a rifle wasn't going to make much difference. In the case of the Texas Tower shooting, how many people were on the ground with rifles and were unable to neutralize the shooter?

According to reports, when the shooter was engaged by the citizens, he no longer was able to shoot anybody else. The researchers and LEO participants have confirmed this.

Again, the Tyler Courthouse shooting is a prime example. You have a good guy with enough training and experience that gave him the confidence to run to engage a man armed with a rifle.

Unfortunately, that is debatable as he left cover to approach the shooter. The latter wearing armor was not taken out and then killed him. The good guy was said to have stopped or slowed down the carnage though.

As an aside, it's been pointed out to me in training, that folks sometime want to approach when they should stay behind cover or move back. Emotionally driven mistake.

We clearly have some armed citizen interventions that are successful, such as Dr. Lee Silverman in hospital incident.

[rickyrick]

So what realistic training is Available nation wide that can teach a civilian to neutralize a mass shooting effectively in a chaotic situation; additionally this must be affordable by all people who have the right to self defense no matter how low of income. Show me this affordable thorough training that can cover multiple active scenarios that is provided during flexible hours so that any worker can attend without interfering with their work schedule.
Is this training even in existence or is it some mythical thing that everyone keeps harping about.
Show me the training that can allow the ordinary person to eliminate a threat in an active shooter scenario. Do not show me training that is for the privileged. Show me the training that even the poorest of person can afford that doesn’t interrupt work.
I want to know. If training exists that can allow me to stop a mall shooter, church shooter, crowded nightclub or school. If it’s affordable and offered during flexible hours near my neighborhood I’ll attend.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Where do you live and how much do you define as reasonable?

[armoredman]

Originally Posted by rickyrick

...It’s a sad reality of modern times. The good guy with a gun probably won’t be there for the next either. The good guy with a gun theory is loosing credibility with each event. ..

The NRA publishes a whole page of good guy with gu new clippings every month. Dont forget Sutherland Springs, where an NRA instructor got there with his AR15 to take out the murderer...lesson from THAT one is keep mags loaded!

[armoredman]

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

...
If we really want the "good guy with a gun" to be demonstrated when these tragedies occur, we need two things to happen.

1. Gun owners need to get licensed.Sorry, not required, refuse to stoop to that level of government intrusion.

2. License holders need to carry ALL THE TIME when it's legal.Law abiding citizens in Arizona CAN carry many, many places, and I do so, every single day.

3. People who carry need to get enough training that they feel competent to engage a serious threat if the need arises.That is ALWAYS a great idea, however, there can be financial limitations, not just the cost of the class/time off work/etc., but down to "can I afford the cost of 500 rounds of ammo to use in this class?" Those who poo poo and say "pshaw, if you REALLY wanted to, you WOULD" are living in a fantasy world that doesn't include food bills, medical bills, "how long can I wait to fix that squealing brake so i can get the kid clothes for school and meds for the wife?" etc. Now should you get what you can even if it's just the stunted training for the CCW permit we still offer? Heck yes, if you can afford it.

4. People who carry and who feel competent to engage, need to carry a firearm that has some reasonable chance of being effective in these kinds of scenarios. The low-capacity belly gun that might make perfect sense for general self-defense is a terrible choice for engaging a shooter at distances of tens of yards as might be encountered in a large public building.Some people carry what they like/can afford/ etc. While you may have a high speed/low drag Wilson Combat 1911A1 from Hades, someone else may only be able to get a used Charco, (*shudder*) 38 snub, and the belly gun, for the traditional 3-7 yard FBI estimate, is still not bad for that purpose. I also can say on the flip side I did a video shooting the wifes new subcompact P-10S, and made many good shots on a steel 3/4 IDPS at 20 yards, including weak hand, and that would be my BUG of choice...if she hadn't already claimed it...

Until we see significant progress in achieving all 4 of those, we likely won't ever really get to put it to the test.

I think we put it to the test every day, and it is documented every month, The Armed Citizen, among other venues. While I would love to see much of the above, (with the MASSIVE exception to licensing my Constitutional Rights, I love living in a Constitutional Carry state!), I would caution that the likelihood is not high, until these attacks become commonplace, here, which, they, statistically, are NOT.

[JohnKSa]

I think we put it to the test every day, and it is documented every month, The Armed Citizen, among other venues.

No question, but in the context of mass shootings, it's certainly not a common event.

I would caution that the likelihood is not high, until these attacks become commonplace, here, which, they, statistically, are NOT.

My point was about the things that would have to change if we want to see good guys with guns stopping mass shootings with any sort of regularity. It's precisely because mass shootings are so relatively rare that it will require a LOT more people carrying guns who are confident and competent enough to use them to stop mass shootings before we are going to get any significant numbers that we can point to.

[Rangerrich99]

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

No question, but in the context of mass shootings, it's certainly not a common event. My point was about the things that would have to change if we want to see good guys with guns stopping mass shootings with any sort of regularity. It's precisely because mass shootings are so relatively rare that it will require a LOT more people carrying guns who are confident and competent enough to use them to stop mass shootings before we are going to get any significant numbers that we can point to.

Good read so far. Gives a lot of things to think about. Thanks to everyone that's responded here.

I will do my best to add quality to the conversation.

The highlighted part is a big part of the reason that we may not ever see a significant change in the outcomes of these incidents.

Quite simply, the math defeats us.

Mass/spree shootings are a lot like meteorite strikes. From the innocent bystander POV, they're completely random, like a bolt lightning on a clear blue-sky day. As was iterated earlier, the shooter picks the time and the place of his act.

And we live in a world where even if every other person in the US owned a gun, and even if more than half of those people carried the thing most of the time, and even if those people were trained at Frontsight or Gunsite, or wherever, and even if they all graduated their schools with an A+, or Distinguished Graduate, or Super Clean Pistol Ninja, at the time of the incident, even well-trained, well-armed people aren't going to react in a uniform manner.

"In order to learn how to fight, one must fight for real. No amount of sparring or perfection in kata will ensure that the martial artist will be able to fight effectively on the day that he is faced with real combat. He must train the body and the mind through actual combat. It is the only way." Bruce Lee (not an exact quote, but fairly close, IIRC)

Many years ago when I was still a full-time commercial flight instructor, I was working with yet another group of young commercial pilots on their emergency training for fixed-wing multi-engine aircraft. Well, they all passed their training on schedule, and they all passed with essentially flying colors.

Months later I was sitting right seat observing-only (OBO) in a twin-engine plane with one of these former students on a training mission. About half-way through our outbound leg we had an engine failure, just after we received our descent clearance.

The training dictates that you First, aviate (keep flying the plane, dipstick!), then verify that you do in fact have an engine out as well as which engine. These items are expressed out loud. Then execute the Emergency Procedures for Single Engine Failure in Cruise Flight as specified in the handy-dandy QRH (don't worry, not going to bore you with every tic on that list). But something this pilot had done dozens of times in practice and had always received a satisfactory rating.

But this time it was a real engine failure in a real plane, not a simulator, at around 2300 (so more than an hour of essentially very boring flying, and starting to get a little sleepy as well), with clouds starting at 16,000, so pitch black, probably about an hour from ELP (long way yet to fly in dark unfamiliar skies, to unfamiliar airport), with mountains approaching somewhere out the windows.

Add: we were at an altitude where the one operating engine couldn't produce enough lift to maintain level flight, so we were in an uncommanded descent. VSI showed approx. 500 feet/min. descending. Towards those mountains we couldn't see. About 8,000 feet, IIRC. Gave us about 10 or 13 minutes before rocky top.

Add: there was a rainstorm. Real IMC within five minutes. Some down-drafts in our way. Fly inside a closet with the door shut. Plane go bouncy bouncy. Won't hold altitude. Large hard invisible rocks outside in front. My Chief Pilot's vernacular: a No Bueno Moment possibly culminating in a life-changing event.

By the way, when you have your first real engine failure in the dark hundreds of miles from the airport, really strange things begin to happen. Your heart-rate triples. You start sweating. Your hands feel like they're shaking. You seem to be looking through a pair of toilet paper cardboard tubes. Your mouth gets ridiculously dry. You can't remember where in your flight bag you stuffed your low level charts. The ones with the elevations of the MOUNTAINS on them.

None of these things aid a pilot in flying a crippled airplane. In fact, it's fairly uncomfortable, if I had to say so.

Fortunately, the second time it happens, your body doesn't do half of that stuff.

Bottom line:
He didn't perform anything like he had in practice. It was . . . not up to standard. I ended up having to take control of the aircraft.

My point being, even if you can get all the training that money can buy, that still doesn't mean that you're going to perform up to the level of your training when it's the real thing. In my experience as a flight instructor, it's more of a spectrum:

Take a hundred students. Train them all exactly to the same standard. Have them test to the same performance. Then drop them in an actual crisis situation, and . . .

Some will fail miserably,

Some will succeed admirably,

Most will perform adequately. Probably. Most of those might make a mistake, but probably not one that will end up killing them and their crew/passengers. Something minor.

No one will perform perfectly.

And just like you don't know when and where the next mass shooter will strike, you don't know which students will perform well, which will do satisfactory, and which will fall flat on their faces.

Then add in the ones that never had a chance for whatever reason.

Then add in the ones that run away from the scene instead of towards it. We don't care why; it was a choice and they made it.

And so on.

So the reality is that due to the very nature of mass shootings and those that perpetrate them, the rarity of these events, combined with the lack of "good guys" that just happen to be in the area at that exact moment, that we may never see a significant change in the data towards the "good guys with a gun."

The math, simply speaking, is not in our favor.

But we also know that sometimes events work out in a way where we do have a chance to change the outcome, simply because we are in fact armed.

Training, at whatever level, quality, consistency, etc., just evens the odds a little, or maybe even tilts the odds slightly back in our favor, in spite of the fact that we were taken largely by surprise, in a place and time not of our choosing.

And when you must play the cards dealt to you, and they're not very good cards, everyone wants every other advantage they can get before having to show.

One of the great "hidden" tools we have at our disposal is the internet. These free forums. Youtube, and so forth. The ability to ask questions and get answers in almost real-time. To discuss video. To analyze and break down incidents tactically, technically, philosophically, etc. can make a difference to some of us.

Maybe to most of those of us that end up one day having to draw a weapon in actual combat. Or maybe not "most," but maybe to several of us.

Most importantly, maybe something I learn here or on a video, or in a class will save a life, like mine for starters.

Which, by the way, is pretty much exactly how we do it in aviation. We take real incidents from the recent past and break them down and try to come up with solid plans of action in case such things happen to us in the future.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Religious slurs are not allowed and lead to a loss of membership

[rickyrick]

The answer isn’t the good guy with a gun. I feel that hoping for a good guy with a gun is just leaving things to the improbable chance that a good guy with a gun is actually going to be there. Not that a good guy with a gun won’t work, he/she/they just won’t be there.

No partisan super god is going to come along and grant national reciprocity, sweep away gun free zones, make gun access easier and encourage more people to carry in public. Not going to happen no or ever; most likely guns are going to become more restricted as our country progresses.
What need to happen is the public needs to be taught to attack these guys without guns. This training needs to happen soon and in earnest, not merely checking off an annual safety meeting box.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Have you engaged in any FOF exercises in such a scenario? A intelligent murdered can pick a high density target with limited unarmed access to him. I'll not describe such but such exercises have been run.

Also, there are quite a few reported incidents of successful use of civilian firearms in rampages shooting. They have been listed here before.

Just one - Dr. Lee Silverman.

[Erno86]

It seems to me...that the Chirstchurch massacre shooter had enough training to lay down accurate rapid fire. I would assume that the training would have had to taken him passed shooting the 40,000 round mark.

[PhotonGuy]

So what realistic training is Available nation wide that can teach a civilian to neutralize a mass shooting effectively in a chaotic situation; additionally this must be affordable by all people who have the right to self defense no matter how low of income. Show me this affordable thorough training that can cover multiple active scenarios that is provided during flexible hours so that any worker can attend without interfering with their work schedule.
Is this training even in existence or is it some mythical thing that everyone keeps harping about.
Show me the training that can allow the ordinary person to eliminate a threat in an active shooter scenario. Do not show me training that is for the privileged. Show me the training that even the poorest of person can afford that doesn’t interrupt work.
I want to know. If training exists that can allow me to stop a mall shooter, church shooter, crowded nightclub or school. If it’s affordable and offered during flexible hours near my neighborhood I’ll attend.

The best I can think of is Front Sight in Pahrump NV, you can sometimes get life memberships for a very low price and their training and instruction is top quality, I speak from my own experience.

[rickyrick]

I just don’t buy the pro-gun argument any more that more guns in the hands of civilians is the answer.
There’s more guns in public than ever, but the shootings are getting more frequent and larger in scale, so the answer isn’t more guns in public places because that hasn’t panned out.
They are not going to let more guns into gun free zones on a large scale and the few places that have allowed campus carry will get reversed soon I’m sure.

Thoughts and prayers don’t work, good guy with a gun is largely absent but random at best, sweeping uniformed concealed carry reciprocity isn’t going to materialize and most gun free zones are going to stand.
We need something more than the same worn out gun enthusiast cliches; or we can simply continue to accept these acts as a part of modern life and leave it all to chance... the anti-gun side isn’t going to accept it and neither should we

I’m as pro gun as they come, but the pro-gun stance isn’t working.

[rickyrick]

The best I can think of is Front Sight in Pahrump NV, you can sometimes get life memberships for a very low price and their training and instruction is top quality, I speak from my own experience.

Thanks for that, will look into that for sure.

[USNRet93]

Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca

The Second Amendment says the people have a "right to keep and bear arms." Does your copy of the Constitution not include the word "bear"?

Definition of 'bear arms'. bear arms. A person's right to bear arms is their right to own and use guns, as a means of defense. ...a country where the right to bear arms is enshrined in the constitution.

The right to keep and bear arms is the people's right to possess weapons for their own defense. Only a few countries currently recognize any right to keep and bear arms and protect it on a statutory level, and even fewer protect the right on a constitutional level.

The Second Amendment to U.S. Constitution guarantees each state's right to keep a militia, and the right of individuals to keep firearms. The Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to keep and bear Arms from infringement by the Federal government. It also protects individual's right to possess firearm unconnected with service in militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home and for recreational purposes such as hunting.

Not really trying to get into an argument with you but don't see the word 'concealed' anywhere..

[HiBC]

I'll suggest that in 2007 a man with an XM-15 ,a backpack of loaded magazines,and two handguns entered the parking lot of the New Life Church in Colorado Springs,Colorado. He killed people in the parking lot and entered the church shooting.
This is a Mega Church,IIRC,I read at the time the congregation was 7000 people.IIRC,the shooter was reported to have had 1000 rounds,
And per the provided Wiki,the shooter vowed to kill all the Christians he could.

This began as potentially a worse mass shooting than we have known.

Jeanne Assam at the time was a former LEO. She was an armed parishioner serving on the church security team.

Some here dismiss the armed citizen in this situation.

IMO you are spreading BS with this one Woman as historic proof.Her testimony is ..well,you can read her account n the Wiki.

This Woman with her concealed carry gun headed for the sound of the shooting and put the shooter with the AR-15 down.

You can imagine all you want about "can't" Real life,she DID

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_C...Life_shootings