imperialism2024 wrote:
Dare I ask, then, why members of this board talk about "victim disarmament zones" and such when they don't intend to use their handguns to stop an attack if it's not convenient? I'm not calling anyone a coward, and I hope that I would be able to put a 270gr HP .44 or two into an active shooter, but it kind of disproves the idea that higher gun availability will prevent such tragedies as we've been having lately. In other words, if many people are busy carrying their 9mm's and .45's in a mall, and someone opens up with an AK, but none of the gun carriers fire a shot to stop him, what good do those guns do? How effective of a deterrent are armed civilians if none of them want to engage someone with a rifle?
I think the thing to realize here is there are many circumstances that would have to be right for an armed citizen to neutralize a shooter. The example above of a man with his wife doesn't go into how close they are to the shooter or if there are hundreds of people running all over the place.. All he stated was that he heard shots. I think his explanation of what he would do is exactly the point of carrying a weapon: protection. This extends to himself, family, friends, and then others; in that order. ( Some people may consider themselves second to loved ones, but I would argue that if you are incapacitated they would be next so you staing alive is paramount to their protection. ) Protection is not an offensive action; it means to guard or defend.
Now, what I have just stated would be totally different if one was in close proximity to the shooter and had a clean shot. (I don't remember which forum I saw it on, but I read a first hand account of the Omaha shooting. The writer would have been in the prime location for this type of action.) This shot would fall under the pretense of protecting others. However ensuring the safety of oneself, family, and friends would have to have been completed first.
To answer your last sentence: if enough of us are carrying there WILL be someone in the position to protect others as I have described it. If there are not enough of us armed then there will never be anyone who is "in the right place at the right time". This is why we must soften the aversion that the general population has to guns and to them being carried by the general population.
To the OP, nice thread. Not being in LE, I'll take it into consideration for my home invasion and SHTF plans.
