Gunfire during Dark Night Rises

[The Mad Moderate]

I understand completely. Guys with boxcutters killed the pilot, and took the plane. BGs had the plane. GGs rushed the the BGs that had boxcutters AND the plane. BGs used the plane to kill the GGs.

No. GGs prevented the BGs from using the plane as a missile. The GGs were successful. The BGs failed their mission.

I agree - however, the Mad Moderate was trying to make the point that somehow what was done on the plane was "easier" than a lone person rushing a heavily armed and armored assailant. That was simply not the case. Either action would involve grave risk to, and courage by, the person(s) doing the rushing.

Exactly. But.... My point was that there was a moment when things hung in the balance on those plains, when all the BGs had was box cutters, and there were only 4-5 hijackers on planes with a hundred or more passengers on board. Todd Beamer and crew did not survive their heroism, but they did foil the hijackers' plan to dive that plane into the capitol or the White House. And more importantly, they were unarmed. Not to speak ill of the dead because their deaths were horrible, but the passengers on the other planes did nothing. They waited for rescue that, 30,000 feet in the air, wasn't coming. instead, they meekly submitted, even after they had witnessed the murder of crew members. A quick bum's rush of fifteen or twenty passengers could have overrun and restrained the hijackers. They weren't bad people. They had simply been conditioned not to act. That's what made what Todd Beamer and his cohorts did so exceptional.

The point I was making had nothing to do really with 9/11 specifically as much as it was about how we, as a people, have been conditioned not to act, and we think and expect that someone in authority will rescue us. But sometimes that will not happen unless we are willing to step up and be the agents of our own deliverance. In the final analysis, that is what CHL is all about, even if we confine it's privileges to the protection of ourselves and our immediate loved ones. But whether we carry strictly to protect ourselves, or whether we think of ourselves as sheepdogs, efforts by pantywaists in the democrat party to disarm us are profoundly immoral, because they make the statement that the life of the law abiding citizen has less value than the life of the criminal who is preying on him. That is my point. Disarming the lawfully armed is immoral, and my reply to Ebert is that his attitude is immoral; and I bitterly resent it when liberals use the evil of an immoral argument to try to cast the most rational people I've ever known—America's gun owners—as the ones whose moral compass is broken.....when the opposite is the truth.

I hope people are not misunderstanding me or mistaking me for a coward, I was simply saying that BASED ON WHAT I KNOW I would not have tried to take down the shooter. It's not that I would be scared its that accessing the situation I think retreat is the smart move in that situation, I'm no good to my family dead, trying to play hero. If you would rush a man with a 12 gauge and an AR-15 go ahead, but I'll be the one keeping low and trying to remove myself from the threat area, if that makes me a coward in your eyes then so be it.

[ajwakeboarder]

They guy didn't have the 12 Gauge. It was in his car. His AR-15 jammed. I would probably try to keep low and think initially, but as soon as there was a lull in the gunfire, i would have tried to do something. I'm not afraid of death. I've got that all squared away, but what I do fear is living with the knowledge I could have done something to save someone's life and I didn't.

[ScooterSissy]

I don't plan on being killed while cowering in fear.

Or letting someone kill my wife or daughter. I will give my life protecting them if that's what it takes just the same as when I was in the Navy to protect my country and for anyone currently serving. I can't foresee when or if that will ever happen, but I'll know it when I see it and hope I don't miss the opportunity. It's just like many of the questions we see on here about when can I shoot. You'll know it when it's happening.

You guys act as if your surprised a liberal would be looking out for number one. It is obvious to me that the mad moderate has a highly developed sense of self preservation.

Just for the record, I am neither a liar or crazy! I have been in situations of being forced to put myself between danger and my loved ones. I moved swift and sure with no concern for my own safety. I prevailed. Sometimes the best defense is a good offense. In all the commotion, it would be very easy to jump that guy. The only thing that would have kept my hands and full weight off of that guy would have been if he shot me before I got to him. NO... I WOULD NOT HAVE TRIED TO THREAD A NEEDLE AND SHOOT IT OUT WITH HIM! Once I got on top of him, I would have tried to shoot him in the face...Point blank range.

My wife and I were discussing this the other night. I told her I didn't think a CHL would have a good shot in a dark theatre, with smoke and hundreds of people screaming and scrambling. However, I said that I was pretty sure I would try to do something.

She paused a second, and actually looked a little sad, and said "I'm 100% sure you would have".

No where near the same type of situation, but eariler this year, we travelled to Florida with my sister. We rounded a bend on the internstate in S FL, and all of the traffic had stopped. I looked ahead and saw that a car was upside down in one of the swamp ponds between the north and south bound lanes, with the wheels barely sticking out. I was out of the car before it stopped moving. I was the third one there, but we were soon joined by 3-4 others. We turned the car enough to get the two guys out (they couldn't get their seatbelts undone, and their heads were upside down in the water). That wasn't the first time ever that my wife saw me do something like that, but it was the most recent. And yeah, there was a part of me that felt good that family was able to see what I know about myself.

[ScooterSissy]

Exactly. But.... My point was that there was a moment when things hung in the balance on those plains, when all the BGs had was box cutters, and there were only 4-5 hijackers on planes with a hundred or more passengers on board. Todd Beamer and crew did not survive their heroism, but they did foil the hijackers' plan to dive that plane into the capitol or the White House. And more importantly, they were unarmed. Not to speak ill of the dead because their deaths were horrible, but the passengers on the other planes did nothing. They waited for rescue that, 30,000 feet in the air, wasn't coming. instead, they meekly submitted, even after they had witnessed the murder of crew members. A quick bum's rush of fifteen or twenty passengers could have overrun and restrained the hijackers. They weren't bad people. They had simply been conditioned not to act. That's what made what Todd Beamer and his cohorts did so exceptional.

The point I was making had nothing to do really with 9/11 specifically as much as it was about how we, as a people, have been conditioned not to act, and we think and expect that someone in authority will rescue us. But sometimes that will not happen unless we are willing to step up and be the agents of our own deliverance. In the final analysis, that is what CHL is all about, even if we confine it's privileges to the protection of ourselves and our immediate loved ones. But whether we carry strictly to protect ourselves, or whether we think of ourselves as sheepdogs, efforts by pantywaists in the democrat party to disarm us are profoundly immoral, because they make the statement that the life of the law abiding citizen has less value than the life of the criminal who is preying on him. That is my point. Disarming the lawfully armed is immoral, and my reply to Ebert is that his attitude is immoral; and I bitterly resent it when liberals use the evil of an immoral argument to try to cast the most rational people I've ever known—America's gun owners—as the ones whose moral compass is broken.....when the opposite is the truth.

Wow. Profoundly put!

[ScooterSissy]

I hope people are not misunderstanding me or mistaking me for a coward, I was simply saying that BASED ON WHAT I KNOW I would not have tried to take down the shooter. It's not that I would be scared its that accessing the situation I think retreat is the smart move in that situation, I'm no good to my family dead, trying to play hero. If you would rush a man with a 12 gauge and an AR-15 go ahead, but I'll be the one keeping low and trying to remove myself from the threat area, if that makes me a coward in your eyes then so be it.

I don't think anyone is saying that; however, your assertion that this is "apples and oranges" to the hijacked plane is simply incorrect. There were surely those on the plane that felt as you did - that rushing them would get them killed (and they would have been right, it did get them killed). However, submitting to tyranny has it's own sort of death as well.

[txhighlander]

Sometimes it's easy to say what we would have done in a situation,but we just weren't there. From the reports I have heard, if half of them are true he was focused on the job in front of him. He could have been approached from behind and taken out. It is easy to say that , why didn't anyone throw a cup of soft drink in his face? There are many things that could have been done but wasn't. What we need to learn from this is to be aware of our surroundings so we don't get caught up in something like this. Remember to breath, when we stop breathing we stop thinking. Plan ahead, find your exits, discuss with family a plan of what to do in a situation. Be proactive with how you think and live. Plan for things to go wrong and learn how to overcome them. We are not living in a time we can just walk without paying attention, drive without paying attention. This unfortunately will get worst before it gets better. It is a tragedy that this happened. I pray for all that had to go through this, it will leave a mark on their lives an ours. Hopefully none of us will ever have to go through something like this or worst. If we do hope we are able to act, not react because we have chosen to not to be a victim.

[Beiruty]

At night I have my Laser/light pistols on me. The light is good for 130 lunmen, my side 4" flash is good for 200 lumens with strobe enough to blind and disorient the shooter. Best countermeasure against your heavily armed shooter.

[C-dub]

I understand completely. Guys with boxcutters killed the pilot, and took the plane. BGs had the plane. GGs rushed the the BGs that had boxcutters AND the plane. BGs used the plane to kill the GGs.

No. GGs prevented the BGs from using the plane as a missile. The GGs were successful. The BGs failed their mission.

Yes. And the GG knew or accepted the possibility that they were going to die no matter what, but they were going to make the attempt to save others.

I have read and heard that this same rationale was used by many guys during WWII. Once they accepted the fact that they were likely going to die they accepted their role in a battle or invasion and did their duty. Many of them also rationalized that they were doing what they could to not let down their buddy or other squad mates. Once they stopped thinking of themselves they became a very effective force.

Had I been in the middle or top of the theater, where we normally sit, I would not have attempted to charge the guy. There were people sitting within 10-20 feet of him that did have the opportunity.

[C-dub]

They guy didn't have the 12 Gauge. It was in his car. His AR-15 jammed. I would probably try to keep low and think initially, but as soon as there was a lull in the gunfire, i would have tried to do something. I'm not afraid of death. I've got that all squared away, but what I do fear is living with the knowledge I could have done something to save someone's life and I didn't.

Where did you get this from? Witnesses, within 10-20 feet said he shot first with the shotgun and when it ran out switched to the rifle.

[sjfcontrol]

The shooter was getting a federal grant to study, so the government provided the money for him to buy the guns.

Bingo!

You folks don't understand how Liberals look at government entitlements. Like food cards and medicaid cards, they don't look at it as spending government money on non essential items. Of coarse the entitlement allowed them to spend money they normally would not have had available, on guns. The pile of money they received from the government was not the pile they actually took the money for guns out of. Kind of like when you see people use food cards for groceries and then spend twenty five dollars on cigarettes and 30 dollars on a bottle of cheap liquor. The food card money was not the pile they used to buy cigarettes and booze so it is OK. Get it now?

Wow! You must drink the REALLY good stuff!!

LOL... I didn't really think about it. Maybe I am drinking better stuff than I realized. My taste buds are possibly more refined than the average welfare liberal. I believe in quality over quantity.

No Two-Buck Chuck for you!

[mamabearCali]

I have though this over and over. The likelihood of being able to take this guy out is small. He was heavily armored, there was tear gas and smoke. The only thing a CHler might be able to do IF they had a clear line of sight is provide cover fire and allow others to escape. I imagine even heavily armored a .45 round might tip the person off balance. Perhaps, even then there is not a high chance of survivability. Once I have exhausted my 7 rounds and then my additional 6 he still has hundreds of rounds on me. But if you could knock him down others might escape. If his gun did jam, well that put things more in your favor. Multiple shots to the torso even with flak jacket and bullet proof vest would hurt and might knock him over. Still, good chance if you engage you are not getting out alive. But perhaps your teen just might.

There is another problem though with engaging, it changes the dynamic a bit and might be troublesome to sort out in the aftermath. Assuming by a miracle you survive now the police think that it was a shoot out between individuals and not a mass murderer being subdued. Hopefully witnesses and your testimony will sort that out, but watching what happened in Florida (a near textbook self defense shot being prosecuted as Murder 2) I don't think that is a foregone conclusion.

All that said, sometimes one must act. Even if the effort may seem futile because there is always the chance you will see tomorrow and you will then have to look in the mirror.

[03Lightningrocks]

I have though this over and over. The likelihood of being able to take this guy out is small. He was heavily armored, there was tear gas and smoke. The only thing a CHler might be able to do IF they had a clear line of sight is provide cover fire and allow others to escape. I imagine even heavily armored a .45 round might tip the person off balance. Perhaps, even then there is not a high chance of survivability. Once I have exhausted my 7 rounds and then my additional 6 he still has hundreds of rounds on me. But if you could knock him down others might escape. If his gun did jam, well that put things more in your favor. Multiple shots to the torso even with flak jacket and bullet proof vest would hurt and might knock him over. Still, good chance if you engage you are not getting out alive. But perhaps your teen just might.

There is another problem though with engaging, it changes the dynamic a bit and might be troublesome to sort out in the aftermath. Assuming by a miracle you survive now the police think that it was a shoot out between individuals and not a mass murderer being subdued. Hopefully witnesses and your testimony will sort that out, but watching what happened in Florida (a near textbook self defense shot being prosecuted as Murder 2) I don't think that is a foregone conclusion.

All that said, sometimes one must act. Even if the effort may seem futile because there is always the chance you will see tomorrow and you will then have to look in the mirror.

Not being there, we are all basically doing the Monday morning quarterback thing but my thoughts on this were that the worse possible move I could make would be to trade shots at a distance with this guy. Paying attention to where he was firing(direction) and knowing that he probably could not actually see very well from that gas mask(no real peripheral vision) in the darkness of the theater. My thinking is that the best chance would be an attempt at flanking him and hitting him with a body tackle from hell or getting so close that shooting him in the face would become an option.

More than anything, attempting to trade shots in a crowded theater of panicking people might not be a wise decision.

[VMI77]

I understand completely. Guys with boxcutters killed the pilot, and took the plane. BGs had the plane. GGs rushed the the BGs that had boxcutters AND the plane. BGs used the plane to kill the GGs.

No. GGs prevented the BGs from using the plane as a missile. The GGs were successful. The BGs failed their mission.

I agree - however, the Mad Moderate was trying to make the point that somehow what was done on the plane was "easier" than a lone person rushing a heavily armed and armored assailant. That was simply not the case. Either action would involve grave risk to, and courage by, the person(s) doing the rushing.

Exactly. But.... My point was that there was a moment when things hung in the balance on those plains, when all the BGs had was box cutters, and there were only 4-5 hijackers on planes with a hundred or more passengers on board. Todd Beamer and crew did not survive their heroism, but they did foil the hijackers' plan to dive that plane into the capitol or the White House. And more importantly, they were unarmed. Not to speak ill of the dead because their deaths were horrible, but the passengers on the other planes did nothing. They waited for rescue that, 30,000 feet in the air, wasn't coming. instead, they meekly submitted, even after they had witnessed the murder of crew members. A quick bum's rush of fifteen or twenty passengers could have overrun and restrained the hijackers. They weren't bad people. They had simply been conditioned not to act. That's what made what Todd Beamer and his cohorts did so exceptional.

The point I was making had nothing to do really with 9/11 specifically as much as it was about how we, as a people, have been conditioned not to act, and we think and expect that someone in authority will rescue us. But sometimes that will not happen unless we are willing to step up and be the agents of our own deliverance. In the final analysis, that is what CHL is all about, even if we confine it's privileges to the protection of ourselves and our immediate loved ones. But whether we carry strictly to protect ourselves, or whether we think of ourselves as sheepdogs, efforts by pantywaists in the democrat party to disarm us are profoundly immoral, because they make the statement that the life of the law abiding citizen has less value than the life of the criminal who is preying on him. That is my point. Disarming the lawfully armed is immoral, and my reply to Ebert is that his attitude is immoral; and I bitterly resent it when liberals use the evil of an immoral argument to try to cast the most rational people I've ever known—America's gun owners—as the ones whose moral compass is broken.....when the opposite is the truth.

From what I understand of the reports, police were on the scene, or very nearby for security, yet the shooter had the theater all to himself for 15-20 minutes while the police waited outside. Whether or not that is true, he did have the theater all to himself for apparently as long as he wanted. The same thing happened at Columbine. In fact, it seems that every mass shooting in the last 10-20 years has played out that way....the police wait until the shooter is finished and leaves or kills himself...they don't rush in and save anyone. They also watched children die on the concrete outside that McDonald's in San Ysidro and did nothing for 77 minutes until a sniper took him out. 77 minutes.....they let him have a free fire zone for over an hour while children bled out before their eyes --obviously officer safety in these situations takes precedence over saving lives of citizens. So I'd say that unless a sniper can take a shot at a killer in a mass shooting, you're on your own, the police are not coming, and there is no basis for assuming they will.

[RoyGBiv]

in a mass shooting, you're on your own, the police are not coming, and there is no basis for assuming they will.

QFT.... 100% Truth.

[Purplehood]

Sometimes it's easy to say what we would have done in a situation,but we just weren't there. From the reports I have heard, if half of them are true he was focused on the job in front of him. He could have been approached from behind and taken out. It is easy to say that , why didn't anyone throw a cup of soft drink in his face? There are many things that could have been done but wasn't. What we need to learn from this is to be aware of our surroundings so we don't get caught up in something like this. Remember to breath, when we stop breathing we stop thinking. Plan ahead, find your exits, discuss with family a plan of what to do in a situation. Be proactive with how you think and live. Plan for things to go wrong and learn how to overcome them. We are not living in a time we can just walk without paying attention, drive without paying attention. This unfortunately will get worst before it gets better. It is a tragedy that this happened. I pray for all that had to go through this, it will leave a mark on their lives an ours. Hopefully none of us will ever have to go through something like this or worst. If we do hope we are able to act, not react because we have chosen to not to be a victim.

Thank god it wasn't NYC. Then some bystander trying to help would only have been able to throw a smaller cup of soft drink in his face.

BTW, I am convinced that if I double-tapped a guy in body armor with a .40 caliber Pistol he would at the very least be stunned. I definitely would follow up at that point (at the very least) by removing any visible weapons from his grasp.
What happens after that is conjecture.