Results 1 to 24 of 24

Thread: What will your handgun do against an active shooter? We found out in Garland...

  1. #1
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    What will your handgun do against an active shooter? We found out in Garland...

    I found Bob Owens write up of the more tactical aspects (for lack of a better term) of the would-be, now DRT, terrorists in Garland, TX interesting. Two shooters armed with carbines taken out in 15 seconds by one trained (presumably OC) shooter with a Glock 45 acp starting at about 20 yard engagement distance.

    Now, I know from experience that even mildly experienced shooters can rip out the center of a B-27 target with a Kel-Tec Sub 2000 at 25 yards. That these BGs were bad shooters is pretty well established just by the nearly non-existent damage they caused. On the other hand, we also know that most active shooter nut-jobs aren't terribly well trained or capable. I think the particulars of this incident give some indication that yes, a well-practiced armed citizen could also neutralize such a threat. That isn't all or everyone or every situation, but it does give us an example to throw back when antis challenge that a guy with a handgun can't stop a guy with a rifle.

    Thoughts? (I am focusing here on an example of the effective defensive use of a handgun against 2 carbine-armed BGs)

    http://bearingarms.com/pushed-forwar...nd-terrorists/

    At the point of the attack, the two suspects apparently drove up and opened fire upon an unarmed security guard who was accompanied by a 60-year-old Garland police officer. The unarmed guard was struck the volley of gunfire. The veteran Garland officer then drew his duty-issue Glock pistol and opened fire on the suspects.

    The officer killed one terrorist and wounded the other in his initial volley of return fire. Witnesses claim there was a brief pause, and then the officer fire two more shots to kill the still-moving terrorist as he appears to be reaching for a backpack. The entire event lasted 15 seconds, with heavily-armed Garland SWAT converging on the scene immediately afterward.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  2. #2
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,622
    Good thing Alvin York didn't stop to consider that he was under equiped and out gunned for the task(s) before him.
    Last edited by Grapeshot; 05-06-2015 at 05:25 PM. Reason: fixed
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  3. #3
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,318
    Hey look, he made it 4 paragraphs in before an obvious grammatical error.

    That aside, this is the first I've heard of this. Apparently my dwelling is a rock.
    Advocate freedom please

  4. #4
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Fox News reports: “This is a prime example of a gun free zone and Texas. They showed up at Charlie Hebdo; it was a massacre. If these two guys would have gotten into that building, it would have been Charlie Hebdo time ten. Fortunately these guys showed up because they were offended by something protected by the First Amendment and they were quickly introduced to the Second Amendment.” - Rob O'Neill reacts to the shootout in Texas and ISIS in America.

    OUTSTANDING.

    ETA: I've long said, "The First Amendment protects the Second, and the Second Amendment protects the First." I feel so strongly about this that I added it to my signature line a couple of years ago. No finer example of this in action has ever occurred than what recently happened in Garland, Texas. Carry on!
    Last edited by since9; 05-10-2015 at 05:46 PM.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  5. #5
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    Fox News reports: "...they were quickly introduced to the Second Amendment. ...
    I thought it was a cop. That has nothing to do with the 2A, except that they play the "we're civilians, too," card when it suits them.
    "It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

  6. #6
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    ...with heavily-armed Garland SWAT converging on the scene immediately afterward.
    Should I be armed for self defense? Uh, I dunno, you tell me.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,158
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Should I be armed for self defense? Uh, I dunno, you tell me.
    The OP event lasted 15 seconds with SWAT arriving immediately afterwards. Kinda beggars the notion of immediately, comparing 15 sec. with SWAT response time. In this case, on-scene would be almost too late, prevention being the best cure.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  8. #8
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,318
    So, was swat already onsite because they were expecting trouble? I mean, I'm just assuming they don't have teleporters yet.

    Quote Originally Posted by MAC702 View Post
    I thought it was a cop. That has nothing to do with the 2A, except that they play the "we're civilians, too," card when it suits them.
    This is a good point.
    Advocate freedom please

  9. #9
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    The OP event lasted 15 seconds with SWAT arriving immediately afterwards. Kinda beggars the notion of immediately, comparing 15 sec. with SWAT response time. In this case, on-scene would be almost too late, prevention being the best cure.
    When seconds count, cops are likely to be...a few more seconds away?

    They had security, the feds likely knew it was gunna happen, and no, I don't consider a 60 y/o cop as only a cop, but a armed citizen in the right place at the right time. Then again, there was a cop there...no?
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  10. #10
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974
    Cops, SWAT are irrelevant to what I found interesting. Two older guys, only one armed 60 y/o with a .45 acp handgun and then 2 active shooters with carbines. In 15 sec 2 active shooters with carbines DRT. Now Mom's Demand Action, ABC "hidden video experiment" people and other antis, tell us again how one guy with a handgun can't stop or slow down an active shooter(s) endangering dozens be it in a school, shopping mall, restaurant or art museum.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  11. #11
    Regular Member paramedic70002's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Franklin, VA, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,448
    If the Garland TX terror event had occurred in NYC, the Tangoes would have gotten away uninjured, and 16 citizens would have been wounded, including several additional wounds to the security guard, as well as 2 wounded LEOs.
    "Each worker carried his sword strapped to his side." Nehemiah 4:18

    Guns Save Lives. Paramedics Save Lives. But...
    Paramedics With Guns Scare People!

  12. #12
    Regular Member twoskinsonemanns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    WV
    Posts
    2,489
    It's a great OP but I'm sure there answer is the same. It's okay for cops to carry and protect they are trained.
    If you want to have a gun go be a cop.
    "I support the ban on assault weapons" - Donald Trump

    We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission - Ayn Rand

  13. #13
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by deepdiver View Post
    Cops, SWAT are irrelevant to what I found interesting. Two older guys, only one armed 60 y/o with a .45 acp handgun and then 2 active shooters with carbines. In 15 sec 2 active shooters with carbines DRT. Now Mom's Demand Action, ABC "hidden video experiment" people and other antis, tell us again how one guy with a handgun can't stop or slow down an active shooter(s) endangering dozens be it in a school, shopping mall, restaurant or art museum.
    Thank you, deepdiver. This is precisely what this thread is about, as clearly evidenced by the title itself. I appreciate your bringing this back into focus in response to those who for some unfathomable reason want to drag it off into the weeds.

    Quote Originally Posted by MAC702 View Post
    I thought it was a cop. That has nothing to do with the 2A, except that they play the "we're civilians, too," card when it suits them.
    This event has everything to do with our Second Amendment! It may have been a cop there that night. Tomorrow it might be you are in waiting in line at a crowded theater or playing with our kids in the park. I've long said, "The First Amendment protects the Second, and the Second Amendment protects the First." I feel so strongly about this that I added it to my signature line a couple of years ago. No finer example of this in action has ever occurred than what recently happened in Garland, Texas.

    Do you think that cops are somehow magically different than civilians when it comes to the use of a firearm? They're not robots. They don't possess some magic gene which sets them apart from the rest of us. In fact, they're not even selected on their ability to shoot, but rather, on the basis of education, thinking, and behavioral skills, along with relatively clean record. If they have difficulty on the range, as some do, they'll get extra training until they meet standards.

    Don't let the "trained cop" part fool you. I've seen many shooters on the range who were every bit as good a marksman as your average cop, and sometimes significantly better. The only question is whether or not they would have been able to perform under fire as cops are trained to do.

    Training isn't about hitting a target on a range. It's about keeping your cool under fire. Those of us who have had formal training, such as through law enforcement or the military, know that a quick, decisive, and accurate response puts you well ahead of the survival curve, as does proper use of cover whenever it's available. As a friend of mine who is an advanced firearms trainer recently shared with me, "when it comes to handguns, sights are best used to refine your point shooting skills." After years of teaching students traditional sight shooting, which ingrains that tendency for live, he's switched to point shooting, first, then using the sights to modify your body's "muscle memory" point shooting accuracy. Couple of shots; see how you did, look through the sights, adjust your aim, look back up at the target alone, and repeat. His goal is simple: For students to be able to draw and empty six rounds into center body mass at 7.5 yards in fairly rapid order (three seconds or less).

    This departs from what we were taught in the military -- two to the heart, one to the head aka "3 and 3, rapid reload." The problem is that even then, a great emphasis was placed on sight picture. No emphasis was placed on point and shoot. If your targets are at a significant distance, like down the street, then you may very well want to revert to your use of sights. In the majority of defensive encounters, however, things happen the same as what happened in Garland, Texas: Armed perpetrator approaches and is clearly not doing what should be doing i.e. either threatening to shoot you or actually shooting at you.

    Every time we're on the range, we should always be thinking about being in a situation where multiple rounds downrange, on target, in minimal time, are the only thing separating us from certain death. Go ahead - let that adrenaline rise! It's an important part of realistic training.

    Quote Originally Posted by twoskinsonemanns View Post
    It's a great OP but I'm sure there answer is the same. It's okay for cops to carry and protect they are trained.
    If you want to have a gun go be a cop.
    Sheriff Clark is by no means the only sheriff in this land of ours who agrees that citizens should be armed. Literally hundreds have come forth in recent years affirming our right to keep and bear arms, even encouraging citizens to do so. Most of the men in blue on our local police force feel the same way.



    Carry on!
    Last edited by since9; 05-10-2015 at 06:38 PM.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  14. #14
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    ...This event has everything to do with our Second Amendment! ...
    The article more than implied that being protected by a cop who happened to get lucky being at the right place at the right time to protect a bunch of unarmed people was the Second Amendment at work.

    No.
    "It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

  15. #15
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by MAC702 View Post
    The article more than implied that being protected by a cop who happened to get lucky being at the right place at the right time to protect a bunch of unarmed people was the Second Amendment at work.

    No.
    My God, Mac! Try stepping out from behind that boulder of yours and read the title of the thread, for a change: "What will your handgun do against an active shooter? We found out in Garland..."

    If you want to explore a different topic i.e. your topic, that boulder of yours, by all means, go create your own thread instead of hijacking another's.

    Sheesh!

    Back to the topic at hand...

    I've long considered myself above taking a tactical shooting course, but in light of the events in Garland, I think it's time I call my friend and see what he has available. I know there's a huge difference between tactical and IPCC shooting. However, if I ever find myself overwhelmed in a firefight, I'd much rather be able to put lead downrange -- accurately -- than be able to clear a multi-room structure.

    Which would you rather be?

    This guy?



    Or one of the many folks who linger so long over their sights they become a statistic?
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  16. #16
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    God forbid I comment directly on the article cited in the OP...

    You were happy to merely comment on my "hijack" (perpetuating it) until I disagreed with you.
    Last edited by MAC702; 05-10-2015 at 08:09 PM.
    "It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

  17. #17
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by MAC702 View Post
    I thought it was a cop. That has nothing to do with the 2A, except that they play the "we're civilians, too," card when it suits them.
    True, but the tactical analysis applies equally well to armed citizens. Unless, that is, you believe police training is magical.

  18. #18
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    Quote Originally Posted by marshaul View Post
    True, but the tactical analysis applies equally well to armed citizens. Unless, that is, you believe police training is magical.
    Agreed. My sole comment was to chastise Fox News for saying that a cop protecting unarmed people had anything to do with the Second Amendment.
    "It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

  19. #19
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974
    Obviously, not every OC/CC civilian is going to be as effective as the LEO in Garland, but then I don't think that every LEO would be as effective as the LEO in Garland either. There are many OC/CC civilians with training under fire as LEO or military who do have that training and skill set. And as we hear time and again, you just don't know until you are faced with that moment. I've had some advanced POST qualified classes and while I FEEL pretty confident, I have no idea how effective I could be. But I am convinced that I am far better off armed in such a situation than unarmed.

    I have read some analysis comparing the obviously under-skilled shooters in Garland to other supposedly more accurate terrorists. But then the examples of "better" were not met force on force so it really is supposition when the shooters essentially have fish in barrels.

    As and aside to the point shooting - I have an airsoft range in my basement work room. It is conveniently exactly 21' from a shooting position in front of the door to the back wall where the targets reside. I bought a 1911 copy airsoft that has correct controls and is not much lighter than an aluminum framed carry 1911 and it fits properly in my 1911 carry holsters. I find it a convenient, safe and inexpensive way to practice point shooting. And yes, it actually has improved my performance with a real 1911, especially first shot accuracy point shooting.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Port Angeles , Washington
    Posts
    39
    From what I've learned about the Garland,Tx. shooting , the responder to the attack was a competition shooter
    with a very high skill level and much experience. Seems most LEOs are only required to qualify with firearms
    two or three times a year, this officer has show-en a much higher level of skill than a run of the mill line officer.
    I glad he was there at the right time to take care of business.

    ........................ Jack

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,510
    http://www.newsweek.com/swat-team-no...contest-330782

    Officers with a SWAT team killed two gunmen in Garland, Texas who opened fire at a gathering of people drawing the Prophet Muhammad last Sunday. City officials said last week the gunmen were killed by a lone traffic officer.

    The new information emerged on Monday as part of an ongoing investigation into the attack by city police and the FBI, The Wall Street Journal reports.

    When the two men, Elton Simpson, 31, and Nadir Soofi, 34, began shooting, a traffic officer did return fire with his service revolver, but only wounded the pair, the Journal reports. The two were killed when four SWAT team officers, part of the more than 40 law enforcement officers assigned to protect the event that day, arrived and fired off dozens of shots, killing both.

  22. #22
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974
    bleepity bleep bleep bleepin' bleep!

    I'm so sick of getting incorrect information from the MSM.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Dandridge, TN
    Posts
    377
    I heard that too. Sounds like a little glory stealing to me, great story to justify their existence, but who knows...that's their story and they're stickin too it. We will never truly know who took the bad guys out now will we? Today the MSM is nothing but entertainment ..... the content does not need to be accurate to report it and no repercussions if its totally off base....... but, you heard it here first!

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    northern wis
    Posts
    3,201
    Quote Originally Posted by Spooler41 View Post
    From what I've learned about the Garland,Tx. shooting , the responder to the attack was a competition shooter
    with a very high skill level and much experience. Seems most LEOs are only required to qualify with firearms
    two or three times a year, this officer has show-en a much higher level of skill than a run of the mill line officer.
    I glad he was there at the right time to take care of business.

    ........................ Jack
    As with most gun owners or LEOs 90 percent hardly ever practice with their firearms except when the have to, another 7 or so practice on a regular basis the other 3 percent are gun people and spend a lot of their own time and money perfecting their shooting skills.

    Sounds like this officer is in the top 3 percent of gun owners/shooters who really care about their craft.
    Personal Defensive Solutions professional personal firearms, edge weapons and hands on defensive training and tactics pdsolutions@hotmail.com

    Any and all spelling errors are just to give the spelling Nazis something to do

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •