interesting profile of mass-murderers

[threefeathers]

Thank you for this information.

 

[Jeff White]

It was mentioned above that comparatively few people carry concealed. This is true, but one carrier may effectively protect a hundred people at church or a thousand people at a concert at a time. Our effectiveness exceeds our immediate numbers.

That has to be one of the more outrageous things I've read here. Going by that theory there should be no crime. I'm sure the number of armed people in the world is enough to deter violence

 

[Hungry Seagull]

I have already made up my mind that as a CHL (Or CCW) I may be the one necessary to stop the killing. Im not chest beating or anything. I just accepted this task as part of Conceal Carrying.

Now if we can get meaningful numbers of Citizens trained and confortable with conceal carrys, we can really ternimate a problem.

I think the article is a bit much towards... time. What is time? To a killer feasting on rooms at a time, there is no time for anyone that actually wants to kill the killer. Every little bit of time that goes by we lose more people.

The killer is already dead. Except for the actual suicide. The KILLER does NOT want to be interrupted. WE want to interrupt the killer. It is hard to get a big fat multi acre college campus with two gaurds, half of which is away on mail errands at various times of the day to be truly secure.

I dare say that the college is obselete. We can now give classes in real time over the internet directly to the students IN THIER HOMES... where they can exercise thier home defense doctrines without exposing the College to any liability.

How cool is that huh?

Now if this college is a armed college with at least one CCW per building, then the Killer has to wonder which of his chosen group is bearing arms? He will have to find out when he actually pulls out the weapon and starts killing a classroom.

The idea of being ternimated while on his first clip or second does not make a killer happy.

There are places in our area that will take a few minutes for LEO's to get to and I can think of a number of incidents of killings from 30, 20 or 10 years ago before the internet was common.

There will be future mass killings. It will happen again. The sooner the people accept this, the sooner they can get trained, carrying and maybe the life they save is thier own.

My problem also lies with the unhappy citizen. Why is it that we can catch granny who is lost a few marbles short of a full load and keep them out of society and safe... but we cannot catch or work with a discontented citizen who may be plotting to slaughter a school.

You solve this problem and you will reduce the need for CCW or any other much more costly response.

There are those who say NO one should have a gun, therefore NO problem. Sorry. I would like to try some of the stuff that causes this sort of fantasy. People will try to kill other people, preferably lots of other people even if they have to carry a 20 pound stone to do it.

 

[Deanimator]

I guess you can use the basic theory that a lone cop running to the bad guy will:

What he does is what a cavalry screen does against an attack. He occupies the attacker or attackers, forcing him or them to "deploy" and attack him, instead of the intended victims. The murderer HAS to pay attention to the cop because that's his ONLY hope of continuing to shoot helpless victims. If he ignores the cop, he gets shot in the back. That gives the victims time to be some place else.

Let's be honest. In these situations, almost 100% of the time the victims are disarmed BY LAW. Don't tell somebody they can't defend themselves, arresting them if they have the means, then refuse to defend them yourself. Yeah, it's dangerous for one cop with a gun to charge into an unknown shooting situation. It's not within a million miles of being as dangerous as being an unarmed target with ZERO means of fighting back. How is it that a lone secretary or a lone school teacher has a greater duty to face an active shooter than a lone cop?

"You don't need a gun, the police will protect you." rings awfully hollow when your "protector", who's previously disarmed you, waits an hour or even five minutes to deliver that "protection".

 

[Duke of Doubt]

Jeff White: "That has to be one of the more outrageous things I've read here. Going by that theory there should be no crime. I'm sure the number of armed people in the world is enough to deter violence"

Nope. We aren't always on scene; even if so, we aren't always in a position to do anything to stop an attack; even if so, we aren't always within range; even if so, we aren't always willing to get involved; even if so, we do not always succeed. Hence, crime continues even when citizens arm themselves. Batman was a fictional character.

Still, every member of a thousand parishioner congregation need not arm themselves to repel an attack on the church by a madman. One or two carriers will suffice, as has been demonstrated amply by real life events.

 

[Hungry Seagull]

Now you went and make me laugh out loud and wake sleeping wife.

I can imagine the 1000 sounds of racking will really scare the mass murder who was just getting started.

 

[Duke of Doubt]

~~ "A mighty fortress is our God ..." ~~

 

[Jeff White]

This is reasonable.

Nope. We aren't always on scene; even if so, we aren't always in a position to do anything to stop an attack; even if so, we aren't always within range; even if so, we aren't always willing to get involved; even if so, we do not always succeed. Hence, crime continues even when citizens arm themselves. Batman was a fictional character.

This is not.

This is true, but one carrier may effectively protect a hundred people at church or a thousand people at a concert at a time. Our effectiveness exceeds our immediate numbers.

It seems you contradict yourself Duke. Either one carrier can protect 100 or even 1000 people or he/she can't. Which is it? You can't have it both ways.

The truth is, that CCW provides no increase in public safety. It only provides an increase in individual safety.

 

[Duke of Doubt]

Jeff White: "It seems you contradict yourself Duke. Either one carrier can protect 100 or even 1000 people or he/she can't. Which is it? You can't have it both ways."

The Obamination is in the details. Emphasis on "can"/"may." No guarantee that one carrier will prevent a massacre. But it's more likely that a carrier will prevent a massacre than that a non-existent carrier will prevent a massacre. It does happen. And the fact that it happens confers a public benefit on non-carriers, who really ought to pay us for the benefit we confer on them.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

It was mentioned above that comparatively few people carry concealed. This is true, but one carrier may effectively protect a hundred people at church or a thousand people at a concert at a time. Our effectiveness exceeds our immediate numbers.

How many CCW people have the training to protect a hundred people? My 72 year old arthritic mom carries. She scored 99% on her last CHL shooting qual. She is a good shot. I am fairly confident in saying that she has no experience in trying to shoot around 100 people running and screaming going helter skelter and be able to effectively deal with threat of one or more armed gun persons within that chaos. Maybe your mom is Batman?

Come to think of it, I could probably do better, but I haven't managed to get that training either and I have been to several schools/trainers for defensive shooting.

 

[Hungry Seagull]

That would be very interesting drill indeed. Have a bus load of people run screaming across the range between shooter and paper target. /sarcastic

 

[Duke of Doubt]

Double Naught: "How many CCW people have the training to protect a hundred people? My 72 year old arthritic mom carries. She scored 99% on her last CHL shooting qual. She is a good shot. I am fairly confident in saying that she has no experience in trying to shoot around 100 people running and screaming going helter skelter and be able to effectively deal with threat of one or more armed gun persons within that chaos. Maybe your mom is Batman?"

No, my mom is Catwoman.

I'm not referring to arthritic septagenarians playing "S.W.A.T.". I'm referring to one guy in the restaurant/church/concert drawing on and shooting an assailant at some point. It happens. At Altamont Mick Jagger's life was saved by a heroic security guard who knifed an armed assailant aiming a handgun at the singer. That security guard obviously wasn't just defending his own life, or even Jagger's. He protected not only Jagger but any innocent bystanders who might have been hit by missed or overpenetrating rounds fired by the assailant. And the guard didn't even have a gun.

 

[basicblur]

When Seconds Count: Stopping Active Killers

Someone in here posted this link last February-watch the video in the upper right hand corner.

The new tactics developed in response to Columbine involved creating an ad-hoc tactical team using the first four or five patrol officers on the scene. They would enter the shooting scene in a diamond formation with guns pointing in all directions. This technique was employed by police departments around the country.
http://www.wcpo.com/news/local/stor...ng-Active-Killers/_yls0jTxAkK8QJR1NKbePA.cspx

 

[Jeff White]

And the fact that it happens confers a public benefit on non-carriers, who really ought to pay us for the benefit we confer on them.

And with that this thread is closed.