Mall shooting kinda close to home

[Mickey_Fx]

This is not good for sure. No matter how you slice it, there is not going to be a joyful Christmas for the family and friends of those killed.

Wife has a Dr appointment at the KP hospital 3 blocks away. Will be looking at the parking lot as we drive by. Have only heard the mall was going to be closed Wed but not longer than that. I suspect customer count will be down for a while.

Don't know if there is anything society can do to halt these tragic events when someone just goes over the deep end. I am sure some will try to do something and it will take the form of having everyone pay for the actions of a few sick people.

 

[texasjohn]

I don't want to hijack the thread, but I'm having trouble figuring out what changes to daily carry would have been helpful in this particular case.

Yes, he was using a rifle. However, it was a shopping mall, some 35 acres. To have stopped him, someone would have had to have been in close proximity at the very first sign of trouble, been carrying (something) and been capable of using it effectively. Any typical concealed carry pistol is CAPABLE of a deadly shot (placement is always paramount, let's not get into caliber or cartridge count here).

I know there are tasers, pepper spray, but don't realistically see these as having immediate lethal threat stopping power, even when properly used, on a subject.

Perhaps there is there something I am missing.

For so many years we've been taught that a personal assault would most likely be "in your face" close. That's still true to some extent, but maybe not. The frequency of mass shootings these days has made many of us rethink our daily carry choice.

 

[texasjohn]

The acts of terror in foreign countries are still much more frequent and devastating than in the US. And they employ many extremely restrictive measures and hoards of police/terrorist hunters. If someone is willing to do something and die in the process, I see no way to stop them from doing some harm with some frequency.

The price of seeking absolute security is significant cost and loss of personal freedoms...note how many TSA people are at every airport and how much time we ALL spend going thru checkpoints, holding our arms up, taking off belts, opening baggage, taking off shoes, and replacing scissors and finger nail files, etc.

I don't think that we are willing as a society to fund trained snipers sufficient to cover a 35 acre mall and empowered to take independent action should a shooter suddenly show up inside a random store. Seems to me we simply have to live with the occasional tragedy, acquire whatever kind of personal protection we wish (or not), and accept the results. We can chase a security rainbow, but never reach it.

Don't know if there is anything society can do to halt these tragic events when someone just goes over the deep end. I am sure some will try to do something and it will take the form of having everyone pay for the actions of a few sick people.

 

[Blast Chamber]

I don't know if anyone carrying a concealed handgun could have stopped the guy after the first shots were fired, but if I had been there I would have felt naked without a pistol. And I don't carry.

We have had the right to Concealed Carry in Wisconsin for a little over 1 year. I have a permit and I carry almost constantly where it is allowed.

Prior to getting my permit I had thought I would only carry under certain circumstances (bad part of town, carrying large sum of cash, etc). However, in light of the number of shootings taking place (several here in Wisconsin since the law passed, all in non-carry "Gun Safe Zones"), I feel vulnerable when I'm not armed.

My take is this; even though it is a one-in-a-million chance that a shooting will happen in my presence, if I wasn't armed because I was just too lazy to carry that day I could never forgive myself.

 

[Pilot]

Imagine the scene. He starts shooting and people start running, scattering everywhere, but generally running away from the shooter. You pull your gun, but people are running past you--some may see the gun and panic, thinking you are the shooter or a second shooter. You need a clear shot and it's best if the shooter doesn't see you. Your best location is behind the shooter, or maybe off to the side--and close. You have to be sure you won't hit an innocent person. And your target is most likely moving. And you need to put him down for the count, preferably with the first shot.

Even with all those people in the mall, the chances there might have been someone nearby and carrying and in a good position to respond are probably slim. And if most people were armed, it's scary to imagine the gun battle that may have resulted from all the confusion.

I'm not against concealed carry. Just seems to me that to stop an event like that once it starts a competent person needs to be in the right place at the right time with the right skills with the right weapon and the willingness to use it accurately.

 

[Ken45101]

Imagine the scene. He starts shooting and people start running, scattering everywhere, but generally running away from the shooter. You pull your gun, but people are running past you--some may see the gun and panic, thinking you are the shooter or a second shooter.

You are right...except, what if the man with a gun you see is an off duty cop? Or another CCW carrier?

The Salt Lake City mall shooting was stopped by an out of district off duty cop who was shopping with his wife. He had the presence of mind to have his wife (a dispatcher herself) call 911 and alert them that he was there and what he was wearing. He pinned the shooter down until regular units arrived.

I know this doesn't solve the issue, but unless you are 110% sure that you have the real criminal in sight, it's best to just protect yourself....and watch out for someone else who thinks you are the instigator.

 

[RDrancher]

I don't want to hijack the thread, but I'm having trouble figuring out what changes to daily carry would have been helpful in this particular case.

Yes, he was using a rifle. However, it was a shopping mall, some 35 acres. To have stopped him, someone would have had to have been in close proximity at the very first sign of trouble, been carrying (something) and been capable of using it effectively. Any typical concealed carry pistol is CAPABLE of a deadly shot (placement is always paramount, let's not get into caliber or cartridge count here).

I know there are tasers, pepper spray, but don't realistically see these as having immediate lethal threat stopping power, even when properly used, on a subject.

Perhaps there is there something I am missing.

Lets just say that with 55 year old eyes, a short site radius snubby in the pocket just doesn't give me that warm and fuzzy secure feeling anymore.

 

[texasjohn]

I put a laser sight on mine. Shows where it's gonna hit...or close by! I figure it beats nothing.

In the world of fight or flight...flight is always preferable...as long as it is an option...there are times where it isn't. At which time, the only response available is whatever you can put in your hands...brass knuckles, baseball bat, nothing or, maybe a concealed weapon with a visible target designator.

Lets just say that with 55 year old eyes, a short site radius snubby in the pocket just doesn't give me that warm and fuzzy secure feeling anymore.

 

[JoeBuyer]

Imagine the scene. He starts shooting and people start running, scattering everywhere, but generally running away from the shooter. You pull your gun, but people are running past you--some may see the gun and panic, thinking you are the shooter or a second shooter..

And when the cops show up they shoot both, they don't know who is who.

 

[RDrancher]

And when the cops show up they shoot both, they don't know who is who.

Show me where that's happened before. So in your scenario, the cops come in and shoot...maybe one of their own, in plain clothes?