‘Good Guy With A Gun’ Was On UCC Campus At Time Of Massacre

2015-10-02T22:15:04-04:00

I just read an article that stated that a student on scene at this shooting had a concealed weapon. I have always wondered where the "good guy with a gun" mantra would be realized in an actual incident. There are many things to consider. In the heat of the moment the good guy might miss and actually end up killing innocent people. The good guy might be mistaken for the bad guy and cause people to flee in the direction of the attacker. But the other scenario that worries me most is the probability of the good guy being confused for the bad guy by responding Officers or SWAT and losing his or her life in the process. It turns out that this was the exact calculus that prevented this individual from attempting to try to shoot this killer.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/10/02/3708410/good-guy-with-gun-was-on-ucc-campus-at-time-of-massacre/

Umpqua Community College, the site of the massacre on Thursday that left at least 10 people dead, was not -- in law or in practice -- a gun free zone.

Response by SPC(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 2 at 2015 10:28 PM

2015-10-02T22:28:35-04:00

Simple solutions to all of those concerns. One, you confront the attacker at the first possible moment. Two, you neutralize the attacker at the first possible moment. Three, when police respond you drop the gun, and immediately comply with orders, allow them to cuff you and explain later. As far as innocents in the crossfire, no more likely with a concealed carrier, than with a police officer, and much less likely than the number of people who would be shot intentionally by the attacker prior to the police arriving.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Oct 2 at 2015 10:37 PM

2015-10-02T22:37:30-04:00

The good guy with a gun argument is tricky.

It's the armed force deterrent philosophy. Or "Show of Force" concept. Cop Bars & Gun Stores don't get robbed. Generally banks in states with concealed carry don't get robbed. Because CRIMINALS, repeat CRIMINALS have a minimal amount of intelligence and don't want to get killed.

This goes back to my point on the other threads. Mass Shooters are not "Criminals" but people with Mental Health issues or those prescribing to an Ideology (Terrorism). In more simple terms, you can't account for Crazy. We're sane, and we cannot "translate" what logic crazy folks use.

There have been shootings where off-duty cops took people down. There have also been LOTS of armed citizen reports stopping robberies. And that's before we get into "de-escalations" and Defensive Gun Usages. The issue is VERY complex, and Mother Jones is downplaying it by cherry-picking the "Mass Shooting" subset.

Response by SSG Gerhard S. made Oct 2 at 2015 10:47 PM

2015-10-02T22:47:22-04:00

There's also the possibility that the good guy kills the bad guy before he can kill any more innocents.

Response by MSgt Curtis Ellis made Oct 3 at 2015 12:47 AM

2015-10-03T00:47:14-04:00

A lot of considerations one has to engage in before deciding to become a hero... They sure don't make the consequences of your actions to a given situation like they used to... It's sad, but true...

Response by 1LT Aaron Barr made Oct 3 at 2015 7:16 AM

2015-10-03T07:16:54-04:00

Part of this issue is that if there is a good guy with a gun who uses it, the shooting often doesn't get a high enough body count to be more than local news. Oh, and that mass shooters tend to choose gun free zones precisely because they can get the types of high body counts and the notoriety they get from that.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 3 at 2015 7:45 AM

2015-10-03T07:45:15-04:00

You make some very excellent points here because as we all know there are loose cannons out there who are trigger happy amongst LEOs.

Response by Cpl Jeff N. made Oct 3 at 2015 8:13 AM

2015-10-03T08:13:38-04:00

The number of people that conceal (or open) carry as a percent of the population is still very small. Someone carrying is under no obligation to stop an attack or put himself in harms way. Many do, there are lots of examples of this and some have been posted on this thread.

The "good guy with a gun" scenario plays out often but is under reported as it is not as sensational when an armed citizen kills someone before things get out of control as it is when a loony tune kills a large number of people with a weapon, especially if an "assault" weapon is used.

The press is draw to these stories like moths to flame. The major news anchors (at least some) flew out to stand in the general vicinity to report on the story (NBC/Lester Holt which I watched, was there). It fits the anti-gun narrative. Guns = bad. What we should be talking about is how to manage people with mental disorders.

This guy lived with mommy, she had to know his condition and yet he amassed an arsenal because he had no criminal record at the time. The mental disorder angle is what we should be looking at but the left wants to go after guns of law abiding citizens as if that would change the game.

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Oct 3 at 2015 11:27 AM

2015-10-03T11:27:39-04:00

The natal home of Fat Burger was located in an oddly shaped building at an oddly shaped intersection of La Cienega and San Vincente Blvds in Los Angeles before it became a fast food chain. It was a popular eatery for cops, especially on the graveyard shift. You might wonder then why anyone would have the temerity to rob the place when it was surrounded by police cruisers and filled with uniformed cops, but then who ever said that criminals were smart? Terrorists either? Terrorists, after all, have whatever reasoning power that was granted to them at birth, stifled by indoctrination (sort of an Islamic version of Common Core). Well, one would be robber did attempt to rob it one night and the results were as you might anticipate.

There is speculation that simply allowing concealed carry will deter crime and there is abundant statistical evidence that it does. Crime rates actually drop dramatically when a jurisdiction makes concealed carry permits easier to obtain. Still, some fool too dim to understand the risk will make the attempt. Thus, in practice, carrying a weapon is ultimately an act of self protection. If in protecting oneself others are protected, all the better. However, it is foolish to expect an untrained though armed citizen to run towards gunfire to protect others. Indeed, the chances of that person hurting innocent bystanders might not be much less than being harmed by the perp.

Response by SPC David Hannaman made Dec 2 at 2015 4:40 PM

2015-12-02T16:40:50-05:00

Just because someone has a CHL doesn't necessarily mean they have training. There were a lot of people in my CHL class that I was of the opinion that they needed more training.