Got their rifle that was most likely in the rack in the rear window of their unlocked pickup that was sitting with the windows down cause no one left their windows up in Texas lessen it was raining.I'm reminded of at least one classic moment when armed citizens interceded against a mass shooter.
It was in Texas in 1966. Charles Whitman started shooting with an array of long arms from atop a tower at the University of Texas in Austin.
This was in the days before SWAT, and the local constabulary were armed only with handguns. Students at UT went to their vehicles and got their hunting rifles. They laid down covering fire against Whitman, while two brave Austin police officers went up the tower, and one dispatched Whitman with his service revolver.
Different times...
I've never been fond of "belly guns", I've carried a gun for 14 years and always make a point to practice at 25 yards (the longest I can get at the range I go to), longer if I'm out in the desert. So when people say something like "defense is arms length or a little more", that doesn't mean anything to me. I'm in a fairly low risk category being in my mid thirties now and in decent shape, but about 10 years ago I was at a train station at night in a not so good area and a young female with a stroller was at a ticket machine about 50-60 yards from me when three men came out of the shadows and approached her with what appeared to be knives in the hands of two of them, I then noticed another figure from the direction they came from sitting on the ground still in the shadows, I started hearing talking as I stared walking their direction, I put my hand on my gun and just yelled as loud as I could "Hey!", I took my gun out of the holster and kept it at my side, I think they realized what I had and started walking away. But had they started stabbing her or something I'd like to know I wouldn't have to take the time to run up to them to engage them while she's being stabbed. That in addition to active shooters, I think if anything you need to be more proficient with your carry gun at various ranges than any home defense gun that you really won't need a shot past 10 yards. And you can absolutely engage a person with a rifle with your handgun, for one thing there's a good chance the shooter is inexperienced (ever seen young guys shooting their AR15s at the 10 yard line and not doing any better than you and your handgun?), it's also unlikely you'll be in the crowd of his first volley, or his first target, he probably won't be expecting anybody to engage him especially if you can flank him, and you have a much better chance of stopping him than the innocent people he's shooting and killing, so I absolutely encourage you to at least get some fire on him to "entertain" him if nothing else, but hopefully you'll get some hits, cover and distance are your friends.
The police indicated there were approximately 3000 people in the store. Let's say that 2/3 of them were Mexican Nationals shopping at the store and couldn't have carry permits--so only 1000 of the 3000 people at the store were TX residents. The stats on TX permit holders say that 1 in 29 TX residents has a permit. That's between 34 and 35 persons out of 1000.
He stopped the gunman, but he did not stop the shooting. The evidence points to the gunman already leaving the scene at the time he was engaged. Furthermore, it's not clear if the good guy was a permit holder, and he certainly wasn't at the scene. He came from his home and had to load his gun on the way to the scene.
Did you read the story? The man who chased the gunman out of the synagogue was not a permit holder--in fact, he was unarmed. An off duty border patrol agent did shoot at the car--as the man was already leaving.
This does appear to be a case where a permit holder interrupted a potential mass shooting. It can happen, and it does happen rarely. I don't think it's impossible, but the facts do show that it is unlikely and therefore I can not, in good conscience tell people anything else.
Probably the Tyler courthouse shooting. It is true that after being engaged and killing the permit holder, the shooter did not kill anyone else--however it's also true that he had already shot his intended victims (wife and possibly his son) and he may have been leaving already. But I think that Mark Wilson is generally given credit for cutting the shooting short. Wilson was a permit holder but he wasn't on the scene. He heard the shooting and came from his home which was nearby. Again, it can happen. But it doesn't appear to be likely.
Yes. He did intervene but does not appear to have had any effect other than getting killed. Neither the man nor his female accomplice were stopped.
It is true that citizens often intervene, but they are mostly unarmed. I have to think that armed intervention would be more effective, but only if permit holders are present, are carrying, only if they will make the choice to intervene, and only if they intervene before the shooting is effectively already over. I wish the facts were different because I am a strong advocate of carrying and have in the past argued that permit holders are a deterrent and effective counter to mass shootings. Unfortunately, I also strive to be accurate and I just can't honestly go on telling people something that the facts contradict. Permit holders CAN be a deterrent, but apparently the choices they seem to make most frequently (not carrying, not intervening, not intervening soon enough) cause them to be unlikely to actually BE a deterrent. I don't intend to lie to people.
That's incorrect. As noted by Apachedriver, and Double Naught Spy it has been legal for years to carry in church, in TX unless the church is posted 30.06. The initial CHL law passed in 1995, listed churches as prohibited places, but very quickly (maybe the next legislative session?) the law was changed so that they were only prohibited if they were 30.06 posted.
That would be wonderful if you would quit lighting up everybody who disagrees with you.
I'm not sure her parting argument constitutes any more of a rationale than the legal restriction, in most municipalities, which says you can't shoot someone once they cease to be a threat. For instance, say you caught someone burgling your house. The burglar runs out the front door, possibly with some of your possessions. Are you legally permitted to shoot him? Likely, whatever ordinances you live under says "no." That one instance does not invalidate every other reason for having a firearm. Same with the big hypothetical woman. Now add that the woman pulls out a knife and lunges toward the liberal woman. The same scenario, with a new wrinkle, becomes grayer.
I have a friend in Hong Kong, an Englishman and a writer, and I've been reading what he has to say.Thanks for that bit of clarification and context.
In regard to your point about Europeans -- they could stand to take a few lessons from the people of Hong Kong...
View attachment 855201
What the numbers say is that it was likely that something like 3 dozen people in that store were PERMIT HOLDERS. Part of my point is that many permit holders apparently don't carry, or if they do they don't intervene. My comments have all been about permit holders.
Name one other mass shooting in the history of the United States where an after-action report was published providing a list of how many people were present, how many had carry permits, how many had firearms, etc.
Well, I can't speak for everyone, but from my perspective this is absolutely NOT the point I'm trying to make. As far as I'm concerned, people answer to no one but themselves for deciding whether or not to have a permit. They answer to no one but themselves for deciding whether or not to carry if they do have a permit. They answer to no one but themselves for deciding whether or not to intervene if they are carrying in a mass shooting.
If, by your own admission, police aren't publishing how many permits, firearms, etc, how can you logically come to the conclusion permit holders would not make a difference in mass shootings?
As with many things, a discussion of what the role of an armed citizen SHOULD be seems to go down the path of opposing viewpoints ending in deadlock. This thread illustrates that earlier on. But I think you raise an excellent point in the direction that a discussion like that could go. Depending on a person’s individual beliefs in what their role should be, their training should be heavily geared towards that end.
