Could you have stopped it?

[JohnKSa]

Not really, the evidence shows that once confronted mass shooters stop killing innocents.

Except when they don't. Maldonado didn't stop when McKown confronted him with a gun. He shot him full of holes and paralyzed him for life.

The Rockledge FL shooter didn't stop when confronted. He kept shooting, chasing the armed manager back into the store although he was eventually neutralized when a second armed citizen joined in.

There was a WalMart shooting awhile back where the shooter was engaged by an armed citizen. The shooter was not stopped when confronted. In fact, the wife of the shooter killed the armed citizen and the shooting continued.

It's not a given that they will give up or that the armed citizen will be effective. It sometimes happens that they are effective (sometimes amazingly so as with the Garland cop who killed the two terrorists), it sometimes happens that they are not.

[Lohman446]

Not really, the evidence shows that once confronted mass shooters stop killing innocents.

Some do. Some don't. I'm guessing the ones wearing body armor have prepared for the contingency. Besides you are not concerned about the average behavior of a mass shooter but the one singular example that threatens you. Can we agree that anyone carrying out such an act is irrational in the first place and applying evidence from past events may be suspect considering the singularity of such an individual?

Evidence shows, for instance, that the vast majority of civilians, even those regularly carrying a concealed firearm, will never use it over the course of their lifetime. No reason to carry considering the evidence Didn't you make the counter argument to this yourself earlier in the thread?

[Nanuk]

Except when they don't. Maldonado didn't stop when McKown confronted him with a gun. He shot him full of holes and paralyzed him for life.

The Rockledge FL shooter didn't stop when confronted. He kept shooting, chasing the armed manager back into the store although he was eventually neutralized when a second armed citizen joined in.

There was a WalMart shooting awhile back where the shooter was engaged by an armed citizen. The shooter was not stopped when confronted. In fact, the wife of the shooter killed the armed citizen and the shooting continued.

It's not a given that they will give up or that the armed citizen will be effective. It sometimes happens that they are effective (sometimes amazingly so as with the Garland cop who killed the two terrorists), it sometimes happens that they are not.
__________________

History supports my statement. Perhaps I should have said; "More often than not".
Nothing is going to work every time, but an armed response sure beats hiding and hoping......

https://www.personaldefenseworld.com...ctive-shooter/

Then there is the Texas church shooting.

In two of the examples you cited the responders used poor tactics and the third was at Rockledge, they certainly disrupted him, he was stopped there.

[Lohman446]

History supports my statement. Perhaps I should have said; "More often than not".

Why carry a gun at all then? More often than not you will not need it?

Finding a safe means of egress is, by definition, safer than confronting an armed individual carrying out a mass shooting.

[Nanuk]

Some do. Some don't. I'm guessing the ones wearing body armor have prepared for the contingency.

Everybody has a plan until they get punched in the mouth.

Besides you are not concerned about the average behavior of a mass shooter but the one singular example that threatens you. Can we agree that anyone carrying out such an act is irrational in the first place and applying evidence from past events may be suspect considering the singularity of such an individual?

No. They may be irrational, but they are all cowards.

Evidence shows, for instance, that the vast majority of civilians, even those regularly carrying a concealed firearm, will never use it over the course of their lifetime.

I guess you do not have a fire extinguisher in your kitchen either.

No reason to carry considering the evidence

Your choice, not mine.

Didn't you make the counter argument to this yourself earlier in the thread?

No.

Why carry a gun at all then? More often than not you will not need it?

Again...... Fire extinguisher. My crystal ball is broke.

Finding a safe means of egress is, by definition, safer than confronting an armed individual carrying out a mass shooting.

Absolutely.

[Lohman446]

but they are all cowards

While a popular sentiment, and the counter-argument is politically unpopular (ask Bill Maher), I believe you are wrong. There are a number of negative descriptions for people who would carry out such acts. I get that they are often targeting unarmed civilians but the results are nearly always being killed in the process, life imprisonment, or the death penalty. I don't think facing such repercussions to be a cowardly act.

Edit, clarification: What I meant by you making the counter argument is you made the argument as to why you should not assume it is safe to not carry. The fire extinguisher argument if you will. This logic applies equally to why you should not assume resistance alone will stop a mass shooter.

[stagpanther]

I watched this this week, there are some fascinating things revealed in it pertinent to this conversation. https://app.stitcher.com/splayer/f/128598/63100712

[USNRet93]

Not really, the evidence shows that once confronted mass shooters stop killing innocents.

Maybe, maybe not.

20th anniversary

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q...B0&FORM=VDRVRV

[Double Naught Spy]

History supports my statement. Perhaps I should have said; "More often than not".
Nothing is going to work every time, but an armed response sure beats hiding and hoping......

I don't know that you have the data to say that when faced with armed resistance, that active shooters stop most of the time. A LOT fight back.

Klebold and Harris didn't stop when confronted by armed response, exchanging shots with SRO.
Whitman @ UT didn't.
Nathan Desai 2016 mass shooting in Houston, fought with cops and was killed
Dionisio Garza III 2016 mass shooting in Houston fought with cops and LTC holder who was wounded through both legs, crippled.
Tyler Courthouse Square shooter battled cops and Mark Wilson (Wilson killed), and was killed after a car chase
Sutherland Springs - fought back against good Sam.
Pulse Night Club - exchanged shots with security guard at entrance at the start of his mass shooting
1984 San Ysidro McDonald's shooting, killed by SWAT sniper
Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik, California, exchanged fire with cops
Nadal Hasan, Fort Hood, exchanged fire with military police
Christopher Harper-Mercer, at Umpqua Community College battled cops before committing suicide
Aaron Alexis - Naval Yard shooter battled security and cops, hitting multiple, and even taking the gun from one of them
2016 Dallas Police shooting, fought with and killed officers, had to be killed by robot with a bomb
Sept. 10, 2017 Spencer James Hight, 32, invaded a Dallas Cowboys watch party at the home of his estranged wife and opened fire, fatally shooting eight people and injuring another. He was killed by a responding officer after an exchange.
Cedric Ford, Kansas lawnmower factory shooting, died in a battle with cops
Pedro Vargas, Hialeah, FL apartment building shooting, killed by cops
Michael Page, Sikh Temple shooting, died in battle with cops, actually ambushing one on his arrival, shooting him 15(?) times.
Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez made attacks on two military facilities, was killed in battle with cops
In 2012, Vic Stacy became a hero in the Peach House RV Park shooting by making long distance shots with his pistol and stopping a gunman who had killed three, their dogs, and was battling with a cop that had been ambushed - heralded as having stopped a mass shooting, Stacy was exchanged shots with the gunman.

You know, a LOT of people survive by hiding and hoping, some even by playing dead.

In two of the examples you cited the responders used poor tactics and the third was at Rockledge, they certainly disrupted him, he was stopped there.

LOL, you are going to be critical of armed citizens who fought back? First you make it sound easy that gunmen will give up when faced with armed responses then you are critical when the armed response isn't by high speed, low drag tactical fighters.

You sited this article on 10 cases where armed citizens took down active shooters.
https://www.personaldefenseworld.com...ctive-shooter/

Man, doesn't that make it sound like armed citizens have the edge? Well, let's look at some of the examples.

Case 1. Paris, law enforcement took down the Charlie Hedbo terrorists after various battles (fighting back). This, after a MASSIVE police and military response to get the shooters.
Case 2. Good example
Case 3. Moore Oklahoma beheading incident, stopped a guy with a knife by shooting him. Good self defense story, but NOT an active shooter. Since when is a guy with a knife an ACTIVE SHOOTER????
Case 4. Pearl, MS, stopped the shooter after the shooter was forced to drive into a field where his vehicle became stuck. This was by an unarmed student using his vehicle to block the shooter. While trying to unstick his vehicle the principal ordered the shooter to cease at gunpoint. The shooting was effectively over at the school when intervention took place. The shooter wasn't "taken" down per se, either, LOL.
Case 5. Nick Melli stopped the shooter at Clackamas Mall? Maybe not. The shooter had a jammed rifle and had already stopped shooting. He retreated, according to Melli, after seeing Melli with his gun, to another part of the mall where he committed suicide after clearing the malfunction. Melli wasn't your typical citizen, but off duty armed security. The shooter wasn't taken down by Melli in any form or fashion.
Case 6. Jeanne Assum, the hero of New Life Church, not just your typical armed citizen, but a former police officer working as armed security for the church.
Case 7. Aurora, CO shooter wasn't shot by a gun toting grandmother or by some software developer, but by an off duty cop.
Case 8. Salt Lake City, UT, another off duty cop
Case 9. Good example
Case 10. Good example

While you could argue that anybody is a "citizen," most of the citizens in the examples cited were not your normal everyday people, what the author called a "good guy or good gal." Most were trained professionals who stopped these people. Your typical CCW "citizen" isn't a trained professional.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

The Rockledge FL shooter didn't stop when confronted. He kept shooting, chasing the armed manager back into the store although he was eventually neutralized when a second armed citizen joined in.

Was this the incident from November of 2017?

It does illustrate your point, but it wasn't a mass shooting. Only two people were shot (other than the shooter, who was also wounded), and only one died. Of course, it might have escalated into a mass shooting if the shooter hadn't been neutralized ... or it might not.

[OhioGuy]

It's interesting to see how the responses vary here. As well as the different opinions toward the effectiveness of CCW in the big picture.

I've often thought that advocacy groups oversell the advantages of CCW as a deterrent against crime and especially mass shootings. I fully believe that bad guys with guns can only be stopped by good guys with guns, but if we're talking about things like mass shootings it needs to be clearly said that these are "well-trained good guys who are extremely proficient with their guns, can improvise tactics and probably have some manner of combat training."

Being a crack shot in IDPA doesn't mean you'll know which way to run for cover if someone starts shooting, or which tactics will get you to an escape vs. cornered.

If people I see and interact with at public ranges are any indicator, the general carrying public are not crack shots in anything. Many are lucky to land center-mass hits at 10 yards, standing still, under no pressure. And these are the ones who care enough to go to the range at all.

I've had many hours of professional gun handling and combative shooting courses. I practice as regularly as I can. But I've never been trained in emergency response tactics.

It seems to me that a rampaging shooter and a responding good guy are not at all on a level playing field. The killer doesn't have to be a good shot. His goal is to spray bullets and cause as much mayhem as possible before he dies. The responding good guy(s) (police, citizens, whatever) can't take the same liberties. They can't spray 'n pray back at him. Bad guys want to cause causalities. Good guys can't afford to miss.

Concealed carry is sometimes spoken of almost as a vaccination against crime. If we can get enough armed citizens out there, then crime will drop, through deterrence or by being stopped by good guys. There's a huge gulf between owning a gun and using it effectively. And another gulf between that, and using it effectively in combat! I think I've crossed the first gulf. I don't pretend to be any further than that.

I carry when I can, I believe in the value of trained, proficient citizens arming themselves to defend themselves and others. I don't oppose Joe and Jane Doe toting around whatever they bought at their LGS just in case they're ever robbed and have to defend themselves at close range. After all that's the most likely scenario any of us will encounter (in the context of an extremely unlikely scenario). That's not a guy roaming down the street with a rifle, a drum magazine and body armor. I often wonder how many people who carry something with them but never train or practice would actually pull it out and use it defensively when the moment strikes. If having a .38 in your purse or pocket makes someone feel safer, then great I guess, but it doesn't actually mean they *are* safer.

I don't know -- but I suspect that the Dayton shooting will pour some cold water on the idea that private citizens will add anything to the prevention of mass shootings. It may not be the right takeaway, but there it stands -- multiple trained, armed police officers charged into danger to take down the shooter in an almost miraculously short time, preventing innumerable deaths. And yet the casualty count was still high. I don't think anyone in the ordinary population would ever think that an armed citizen could have realistically stopped this.

I'm not saying that I don't think it could have made some difference. But still, it didn't here. The original question was "Could you have stopped this?" I don't think any of us can say anything more than "I'll never know, but most likely not." Mass shooter response is not a good "selling point" for why people should get permits and carry concealed, IMO.

[Nanuk]

Edit, clarification: What I meant by you making the counter argument is you made the argument as to why you should not assume it is safe to not carry. The fire extinguisher argument if you will. This logic applies equally to why you should not assume resistance alone will stop a mass shoot

I think you miss understand me. If I decide to engage, I plan to destroy them, not resist them. I carry a fullsize Glock 357 Sig or a magnum revolver all the time, everywhere I go.

[Nanuk]

Maybe, maybe not.

20th anniversary

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q...B0&FORM=VDRVRV

_________________

Armed robbers VS active shooters.

[Nanuk]

I don't know that you have the data to say that when faced with armed resistance, that active shooters stop most of the time. A LOT fight back.

The FBI. There will always be anomalies. Your options may be fight or die, you may fight and die anyway. Sure they don't alway capitulate. More do than do not.

Rip it all you want, I may be wrong.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

I’d just point out you don’t have to shoot the attacker to save lives. There are several instances where an immediate armed response didn’t end the fight; but it did confine the attacker into a limited area where he couldn’t gain access to more targets.

[Double Naught Spy]

I’d just point out you don’t have to shoot the attacker to save lives. There are several instances where an immediate armed response didn’t end the fight; but it did confine the attacker into a limited area where he couldn’t gain access to more targets.

...and then the Dallas Police blew up Micah Xavier Johnson with a robot and a bomb.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Double Naught Spy

...and then the Dallas Police blew up Micah Xavier Johnson with a robot and a bomb.

A better example might be the Trolley Square Mall incident in 2007. Yes, the "good guy with a gun" who initially engaged the shooter was an off-duty cop, but that's not really the point. The point is that all he had was a Kimber compact 1911 with a total of seven rounds -- and no spare magazine. Nonetheless, by engaging the shooter he pinned him down and stopped him from seeking out more victims. He took the shooter out of the fight long enough for the cavalry to arrive.

[FITASC]

Seems to me after reading these posts..........(and I hope I am totally wrong) that there are some young video game commandos who envision themselves making these hero moves.....

You carry to protect you and yours; after that, the game is up for interpretation

[Double Naught Spy]

A better example might be the Trolley Square Mall incident in 2007. Yes, the "good guy with a gun" who initially engaged the shooter was an off-duty cop, but that's not really the point. The point is that all he had was a Kimber compact 1911 with a total of seven rounds -- and no spare magazine. Nonetheless, by engaging the shooter he pinned him down and stopped him from seeking out more victims. He took the shooter out of the fight long enough for the cavalry to arrive.

I don't know if it was a better example or not. The police used guns to chase Johnson into a barricade situation where he no longer had access to targets. That sounds like a 100% match. The bombing was just what made the story particularly interesting.

Trolley Springs, like Dallas, did involve a cop and incidents involving cops really are on a whole different level than incidents involving John and Jane Doe, CCWer. By and large, cops have more training that John and Jane. They are given more leeway in the activities to protect the public and are not vilified for John Wayning the situation. Nobody ever suggests it isn't their job to protect the public. Officer Hammond was able to identify himself to other responding officers as an officer, which is something your average CCWer can't do. First among things Hammond did was to identify himself as a police officer to the shooter, who promptly shot at him. CCWers can't identify themselves as cops, not legally.

Hammond engaged the shooter first, but did not pin down the shooter and stop him from seeking other victims. After being engaged by Hammond, the shooter shot at 4 people, injuring 1. About that time, a Salt Lake PD officer Oblad arrived and teamed up with Hammond and together they pinned down the shooter until other officers approached the shooter from behind.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_Square_shooting
https://www.deseret.com/2007/2/17/20...-the-shootings
https://www.deseret.com/2007/2/19/20...olley-shooting
https://www.deseret.com/2007/2/17/20...-the-shootings

Hammond's version, running battle, losing sight of shooter, joining with Oblat. https://www.deseret.com/2007/2/16/20...ter-the-gunman

Sadly, Hammond left law enforcement after repeated complaints and doing time for sexual battery.
https://www.deseret.com/2010/2/17/20...ro-ken-hammond
https://www.deseret.com/2009/4/22/20...sexual-battery

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Double Naught Spy

Sadly, Hammond left law enforcement after repeated complaints and doing time for sexual battery.

I know about [former] Officer Hammond's career choices subsequent to the mall incident. Given the facts, I cannot in any way think it's sad that he left law enforcement. I just feel sorry for his poor wife.

[Double Naught Spy]

Not sad that he left law enforcement. Just sad he was scum.

[Nanuk]

Seems to me after reading these posts..........(and I hope I am totally wrong) that there are some young video game commandos who envision themselves making these hero moves.....

Seems to me that you should call these out individually instead of making a blanket statement.

[USNRet93]

Originally Posted by Nanuk

_________________

Armed robbers VS active shooters.

They started out as armed robbers, ended up as active shooters..vs the police, who were outgunned...

[Nanuk]

A better example might be the Trolley Square Mall incident in 2007. Yes, the "good guy with a gun" who initially engaged the shooter was an off-duty cop, but that's not really the point. The point is that all he had was a Kimber compact 1911 with a total of seven rounds -- and no spare magazine. Nonetheless, by engaging the shooter he pinned him down and stopped him from seeking out more victims. He took the shooter out of the fight long enough for the cavalry to arrive.

Exactly the point I was trying to make. They may not have STOPPED to BG in his tracks, but they stopped the killing.

Like this shooting;

https://bearingarms.com/ba-staff/201...ass-shootings/

The fact is whether it is a police officer or an armed citizen, an armed response cuts down the time the BG has to kill innocent. I understand that most CCW's have very little training, but to be honest your average patrol cop has very little training too.

[Nanuk]

They started out as armed robbers, ended up as active shooters..vs the police, who were outgunned...

Welcome to the LAPD.

Whole different mind set. Do you lump Platt and Maddox into the active shooter category?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_FBI_Miami_shootout

I see people trying to link the Dallas PD killer as well, he was on a mission to kill cops, not kids at the mall.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_s...olice_officers

Again different mind set.

By your logic anyone who shoots it out with the responding cops is a active shooter.