Well, that and “I bet there’s a ton of free Milk Duds under these seats right now!”
The training I’ve had taught us there is no such thing as an easy headshot. They specifically directed us away from shooting the “bad guy” in the head - aim for the center of mass unless there’s some absolutely extraordinary circumstance which makes you have to go for the head.
~
I carry my concealed handgun to the movies, mainly because I’ve had a couple incidents where I was harassed by a gang of teenagers outside a theater, and sometimes at night when you’re walking through the dark parking lot, it’s very uncomfortable. My tactic in this situation would have been to run like hell pushing Fierra ahead of me so I could shield her. If that seemed really unwise, like hails of bullets overhead, then I’d force us both down onto the floor between the rows as low as possible and try to wait for the assailant to stop or be stopped. I would draw my gun at that point, however, and if in a hypothetical situation the assailant was walking down the aisle to “clean up” stragglers, yes I would shoot to kill him as he came by, because at that point as soon as he sees us on the floor he’s almost certainly going to shoot us anyhow.
Hopefully at least someone will agree that’s a reasonable tactic.
It would be a 1.5:1 dildo:asshole ratio, assuming about even numbers of men and women. [/PEDANTRY]
I agree that’s a reasonable tactic. I assume you’ll agree that’s not what Morgenstern or kwimby have been talking about.
I consider it instructive that a number of people pointing out what a bad idea it was to return fire from across the theater are generally pro-gun.
But then you might owe her an apology.
People think that bringing a 3 month old infant was inexcusable, and you want to sneak in your duck?
A majority of the states which honor CCW require completion of a practical classroom course. IME this course is typically 6-8 hours of legalities and safety tips, followed by a minimal range demonstration. I have not seen any curriculum for any standard CCW license which would give any CCW holder any better chance of responding to a situation like this than any average gun owner. I’m happy to be proven wrong, but I doubt such a course would make up the majority of CCW courses. I know a bit about Colorado’s requirements, and they appear to be very similar to what I mentioned above.
@Inigo
Yeah, it’s pretty hopeless isn’t it. The alternative is to lay there and watch him walk his shots up your leg into your chest.
Airline pilots received the right to carry handguns to protect themself and their aircraft. Apparently they feel they can use their weapons in a safe way, and doing so in an airliner has to be much more difficult.
I agree they are advocating a very different course. I know my own limitations and the limitations of reality, and that’s why my course of action would have been purely avoidance and defensive, up until the point where no avoidance or defense was at all possible.
As I’ve said, when you’ve got to choose between becoming a victim or firing back, because running is no longer possible, then I don’t see an option other than returning fire. Actually, the part about no avoidance or possible defense pretty clearly equated to my “fire back or die” in that situation.
This masturbatory fantasy seems to hinge on the premise “I’m armed, the gunman is armed, but no one else is armed.”
The reality would be that even if, say, five “good guys” were armed, as soon as one fired, the complexity of the situation would increase dramatically, and suddenly you’d have six retards firing randomly in a crowded theatre rather than just one.
That sure would make things better!
That’s been said a couple of times now in this thread and everyone save a few Fred Willards agrees.
Strangely, quite a few people did not become victims despite not returning fire. How about that!
Yet, one out of four did. What odds.
This is like some bizarro case of Kant’s categorical imperative. If you have to assume that you’re the only guy with a gun, then, as Kant would say, “You’re fucked.”
Not that it matters, but I have. A long time ago, to be sure.
A tactical vest is not body armor. That being said
http://planet.infowars.com/guns/death-by-democide-the-reason-we-have-the-2nd-amendment
Several examples of armed citizens staving off shooters or reducing their damage.
In 1997, an assistant principal grabbed a .45 from the glove compartment of his truck and subdued a teen shooter at his Mississippi high school after two students were shot and seven were injured (source).
In February 2007, an armed off-duty officer was able to fend off a shooter in a Utah mall until police could arrive (source). Later that same year, a Colorado woman with a pistol permit took down a gunman after a shooting spree that spanned 12 hours and two churches left five people dead (source).
Last year, a pharmacist with a concealed carry permit was able to stop two armed robbers who had taken customers hostage at his Michigan drugstore (source).
Just last month, a legally armed passerby was able to end a vicious attack on a woman in Georgia simply by brandishing his weapon and threatening to use it (source).
So before you speak without knowing what youre talking about, STFU
News story in NY Times from 2008.
Over an 11 year period, trained police officers had a hit ration of 34 percent. Big time, big city NYPD police officers more likely to miss their target than hit it. And as the article states, this was usually without people firing at them.
So why would anyone trust the accuracy of an every day armed citizen, suddenly thrust into an adrenaline-fueled fight for his life. Anyone else reminded of the kid with the hand-cannon that came out blasting from the bathroom in Pulp Fiction?
Don’t get me wrong, if an audience member stands up and plugs the guy in the head, I’ll buy him dinner. But said audience member would have to have astonishing self-control, great hand to eye coordination, brass balls and nerves of fucking steel.
I know a lot of folks see themselves that way, but its actually, ya know, kinda rare.
That still indicates that you’re presenting a false dilemma.
The choices in reality are…
[ol]
[li]attempt to leave the theatre and possibly survive[/li][li]return fire, increasing the complexity of the situation and dramatically reducing the survival rate for all involved[/li][/ol]
As someone else said, you’re basically saying you’d rather increase your own (imagined) odds of survival by endangering everyone. Some fucking hero you are.
Oh yeah. Whatever happened to him after his meeting with the businessmen he was politely talking to?