Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire One San Bernardino Witness Was Armed

Brilliant reading comprehension once again. It's not a discussion of what you have or I have, it's what the guy at the shop had.

I have NO doubt that your fat ass could soak up 23 rounds before your bacon grease pumper gave out.

Luckily I don't go anywhere without an scoped AR and some mags handy these days....

He did what was right though, had to protect what he had in his charge, and if the perps would have come there, then it would be on...

But really, bottom line here if 50% or more of those folks in the AO, where armed, it would have stopped a lot quicker than waiting on cops to get there...

Whats that saying, when seconds count, cops are only minutes away....

I wasn't there, so I can't fully comment on what I would have done. Suffice to say, my carry is a seven shot Khar CW45 and unless I had a complete drop on these two, I don't think I would have gone in there like the 24th Lancers at the Balaclava Heights....

The guy did the right thing.

It's one thing to engage an active shooter that is killing folks.

But to hear shots, run outside and see two people with "military type gear" get into a black SUV, isn't conducive to having much of a positive outcome.

Being as you just rushed outside, how do you know they aren't SWAT or other responders?

If the people you see when you rush outside are not engaging you with multiple tactical rifles and plenty of ammo when you see them... What do you think they will do if you start firing on them with your carry pistol and 16 rounds of ammo?

Thanks for your input CME.

Exactly. The guy did right by the people in his charge.

Every situation is different. These events are like war. Everybody has a plan until they get hit in the mouth. The best thing you can do is arm yourself, and mentally prepare to do what you have to do to protect you and yours. It may be run, it may be stand and fight, it may be advance and fight. Depends on all the attending circumstances at the time. The one thing I won't do, armed or not, is cower in place and be shot execution style. All else depends on the situation at the time. If I'm with my family, friends, coworkers, if possible, I'm going to look first for a safe egress for them, or if none, a safe place to put up a defense with the best cover and concealment for them and good fields of fire if I'm armed.

I covered this in a previous post to DeFlave.

That wasn't directed at you, per se. I was just opining that given the circumstances he seemed to make the right choices, and what consequences could arise from acting on the scene differently.

This is the same rational in Minnesota as well. The CCW is for personal protection.
Retreat is taught as a better recourse if the situation permits. Use of your weapon is the very last option. Actively engaging in an ongoing shooting incident to protect others is risky at best.
Understanding the bravado that exists here, state laws or an encompassing federal law could be constructed to allow citizens to engage a shooter(s) if law enforcement is not present. Tragically, off duty officers have been shot by leo's when engaging shooters. Right now, if your state allows you to act in the defense of others, consider it a blessing. Maybe its time to expand the scope of CCW permit holders.

Bravado will likely get you killed, either by perps or SWAT. SWAT, in the heat of battle, could end up taking out all active shooters. Those split second decisions come quickly to already on edge LEO's. They'll neutralize the threat, sort it out after the fact.

Good sense and hunkering down until things get sorted out is the only way to go. Now, if the fight extends into your space, that's a game changer.

SWAT trains all the time for these encounters. They have state of the art equipment and it's still a challenge. Joe Bob with his trusty Glock needs to stand down and not rush in.

"Fools rush in where Angels fear to tread..."

DF

i agree with you.......and I hate it :grins:

SWAT trains all the time for these encounters. They have state of the art equipment and it's still a challenge. Joe Bob with his trusty Glock needs to stand down and not rush in.

yeah i saw one 300pound female popo running during that confrontation, she was having a hard time. as to state of the art equipment, ruger mini14's which must be politically correct in calfornia not looking as nasty as a black rifle.

The only thing that guy did wrong was have the wrong kind of firearm handy. Since it was his business, not much reason not to have a rifle of some sort handy. Even a beat up 30-30 that you don't mind too much if it gets stolen would have given him the ability to engage those people at a distance and take one or both of them down. At a 150 to 200 yards I would take my chances all day long and twice on Sundays if I got the first shot off with a 30-30 on a couple people who were not expecting to get shot at from that range and direction. I don't care what they are armed with.

Seriously, though that is the sort of thing we're going to have to start thinking about over the next few years. This is going to become more common and unlike a deranged shooter, this is war. And if they are going to make war on us here at home, then we have the obligation to ourselves, our families, and our neighbors to be as prepared as we can be. That means rifles in your cars and businesses where and when you can. And always being armed to the extent that you can be otherwise.

No soldier would go into a fight armed only with a pistol by choice. And neither should you. Keep a rifle as handy as you can. Even a deer rifle offers significantly more capability than a pistol and the possibility of engaging these sorts of idiots from a block away.

Yes, one should only shoot back when they are shot at and in mortal danger. There is no reason to run with a weapon toward sounds of gun fire unless trained to do so because there is no reason to increase body count of the innocent.

In my youth, swaggering would-be heroes were called drugstore cowboys. Today, they're keyboard commandos.


If you rush in blazing away with your pistol, you'll be there shooting "perps" just about the time the police arrive looking to take down "a man with a gun shooting people." Your stupid days will be over, and the police won't know who the REAL bad guys were. Like the man said, brilliant.

You won't know it, but you just became a tool in the hands of those who say private gun ownership just makes things worse.

Good lord, you people are doing nothing but echoing the anti-gunner talking points. I mean, we can't trust average people with guns trying to stop a shooter, they might get hurt or hurt someone else.

There are numerous examples of guys with CCWs rushing to the scene and doing good. And I don't care where you are, a CCW close by will get there faster than a cop in almost every case.

One example I can think of happened outside a courthouse in Tyler, Texas seven or eight years ago. A guy showed up with an SKS, shot a few people and was about to execute his son in cold blood. A CCW holder ran from his business across the square and shot the guy in the back just as he was about to kill him. The CCW paid with his life because the rifleman was wearing armor, but it distracted him long enough that the kid escaped and it forced the rifleman to flee the scene. He was later caught by cops and killed before he did any further harm to anyone else.

Was that guy wrong to go to the gunfire? No, he was a hero. Did he get there before the cops? Yes, he did and the shooting was AT A COURTHOUSE. There were dozens of cops really close but he still got there first. He saved AT LEAST two lives. The only thing he didn't do right was go better armed.

I've always thought the same thing Rocky. How would the arriving police differentiate in the heat of the moment between the good guy and the bad guy? A follow-up investigation would sort out who was who, but the armed citizen would probably be dead.

Also, consider a situation (like the Aurora CO movie theater shootings - James Holmes). Suppose a legally armed citizen started shooting at Holmes as he fired - how many innocents might be hit by his shots? This would be bad press for gun rights, but consider the alternative with many more shot by the perpetrator. Seems to be a quandary.

Joe Bob,

I just picked a good ole boy name out of the blue to make a point, could have been Billy Bob, etc.

Sorry about using your handle...

I guess if things keep going like they're going, we're all going to need better weapons close by, not just a handgun.

My SWAT buddy tells me a handgun is good for fighting your way back to your vehicle for a real weapon to finish the fight...

DF

^^^

Rocky is one of the few on the fire who has had shots fired at him in anger. I agree with his response.