Gunman kills 3 in NV,armed shopowner regrets not shooting back

http://news.yahoo.com/gunman-kills-3-nevada-ihop-including-guardsmen-004946980.html

Ralph Swagler said he grabbed his own weapon, but said it was too late to stop the shooter, who charged into the IHOP through the front doors.
"I wish I had shot at him when he was going in the IHOP," said Swagler, who owns Locals BBQ & Grill. "But when he came at me, when somebody is pointing an automatic weapon at you — you can't believe the firepower, the kind of rounds coming out of that weapon."


Personally i think he acted the way alot of us would have,if its not you being shot,or your taking heavy fire....it may be best to just hunker down and be a good witness unless you can get the chance to shoot without it just being suicide on your part

If you don't have the will to use the firearm in the defense of yourself or others you have no business carrying concealed or openly.

I would most likely freeze in sheer terror, but I hope that I could forget myself just a little and take a freaking shot. In just about every case of me personally witnessing a crime, the recognition of what was actually happening took so long that my response was kind of untimely. But I would hope that I would recognize that nothing legitimate was underway with an AK firing in public.

Talk is cheap, typing even more so, so no judgement, just recognition that things happen fast, and thinking fast is the only solution.

zack991 said:

If you don't have the will to use the firearm in the defense of yourself or others you have no business carrying concealed or openly.

Click to expand...

I have no moral duty to defend anyone other than myself and my immediate family.

ralph clearly hadnt been mentally prepared to use the firearm he chose to have for protection. its a sad story, I believe that if you are trained and are proficient with your carry weapon, the gun the BG has doesnt matter. we all can learn from this. "i would rather be a mark wilson then a ralph swagler"


mark wilson was a brave texan who used his 1911 to save a child from being killed in front of a courthouse in texas. He payed the ultimate sacrafice
while another "ralph swagler" sat idol with a sig sauer and was affraid to engage the the shooter.

These things happen quick. According to the report he killed himself. I think I would have engaged him, I will not criticize those who would not it's a tough call when your carrying a handgun and you find yourself against someone with a rifle.

Howdy Folks!
I have no question about what I'd have done.
I'd have already drawn my weapon when seeing the guy approaching with his AK.
The moment he pointed it at another citizen, I'd have started shooting!

No moral responsibility to defend anybody but myself? Not part of my thinking.
And I'm glad our young folks in our all volunteer military don't think that way either.
Or to put it as Cain did, "Am I my brother's keeper?"

If we are unwilling to stick up for the innocent, who should bother doing so for us when we're the target?

Blessings,
M-Taliesin

M-Taliesin said:

Howdy Folks!
I have no question about what I'd have done.
I'd have already drawn my weapon when seeing the guy approaching with his AK.
The moment he pointed it at another citizen, I'd have started shooting!

No moral responsibility to defend anybody but myself? Not part of my thinking.
And I'm glad our young folks in our all volunteer military don't think that way either.
Or to put it as Cain did, "Am I my brother's keeper?"

If we are unwilling to stick up for the innocent, who should bother doing so for us when we're the target?

Blessings,
M-Taliesin

Click to expand...

I do not have a cite for this but, when these sub-humans are engaged they usually kill themselves.

Right on M.

I was reading Constitutional Law one day and it said:
If a citizen sees a felony being commited it is his duty
to stop it if he has the means to.
If I am armed I could not watch some a$$hole shoot
innocent people....If you don't have the mindset to
use a gun don't carry.

Butch00 said:

I was reading Constitutional Law one day and it said:
If a citizen sees a felony being commited it is his duty
to stop it if he has the means to.
If I am armed I could not watch some a$$hole shoot
innocent people....If you don't have the mindset to
use a gun don't carry.

Click to expand...

In those states without solid Castle Doctrine law, that citizen can be charged with a crime for doing so, where deadly force is employed.


Do you have a link or reference for that please? I would love to review that one before the next NV legislative session. We almost got strong Castle Doctrine last go-round.


Now, the reality in NV is that HAD the armed individual acted, and it was subsequently determined that HE was not in danger, he MIGHT leave himself open to criminal charges.

Here is the relevant legislation passed in 2011: http://www.leg.state.nv.us/Session/76th2011/Bills/AB/AB321_EN.pdf

Note that the existing statute provides

Justifiable homicide is the killing of a human
being in necessary self-defense, or in defense of habitation, property
or person

Click to expand...

Statute does NOT extend it to "defense of others." While it might result in a "no bill," or not even be presented as a charge, our current law does not cover beyond "self, habitation, property or person."

I may be misreading "person" more restrictive than the author of the law intends, but.







NOTE: The changes are not effective until 01OCT, 2011.






Further, had he enganged and neutralized the shooter, Nevada law does NOT provide civil immunity.

http://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-041.html#NRS041Sec095

zack991 said:

If you don't have the will to use the firearm in the defense of yourself or others you have no business carrying concealed or openly.

Click to expand...

Personally, I take no responsibility for the safety of others who are not my close friends and family. I am in no hurry to become any sort of hero type. kthx.

zack991 said:

If you don't have the will to use the firearm in the defense of yourself or others you have no business carrying concealed or openly.

Click to expand...

BS wrt the thread topic.

zack991 said:

If you don't have the will to use the firearm in the defense of yourself or others you have no business carrying concealed or openly.

Click to expand...

Attitudes like this are emblematic of everything wrong with some posts on this board. It ignores the facts, takes a fallacious stand on a duty to protect others and greatly overgeneralizes the concept of discretionary use of a firearm. In addition it seeks to supplant the right to carry with a subjective judgment.

As with abortion, the business of carrying is not up for debate, being a personal right. Whether someone shoots or not may not be a matter of will but actually a recognition of level of skill.

Badger Johnson said:

As with abortion, the business of carrying is not up for debate, being a personal right. Whether someone shoots or not may not be a matter of will but actually a recognition of level of skill.

Click to expand...

How do you derail a thread? You call the murdering of infants a "right" in a thread that has nothing to do with murdering children. This sentence could have read, "The business of carrying is not up for debate." But instead a hot button issue that is sure to bring up debate was thrown in, so here we go!


It is no one's duty to protect me, but if I'm out at lunch and in uniform I'd hope someone would protect me. You see, I always carry a gun, BUT if I am in uniform like these servicemen in the IHOP were I am an easy target. This is because our lawmakers have legislated me out of my right to bear arms. The uniform has everything to do with that because if you see myself or anyone in uniform they are 99% of the time on their way to or from a military base. A place where there is no carrying of firearms. If you do you carry you are to be treated like a terrorist for even thinking of practicing means to defend yourself, family, or friends.

Oh, heck! Badger Johnson finally says something that sounds like he agrees with me about the amount of bloodlust displayed by some posters, and you go and focus on a small, insignificant statement of carrying being a right that the courts may some day protect with as much vigor as they do other "rights". This was not a debate about abortion/right-to-life/women's-rights until you tried to make it into one.

And for all of you posters saying that Ralph Swagler is some sort of wuss or uncaring person or incompetent because he did not get his handgun to hand and rounds downrange fast enough to stop the shooter before he got inside the IHOP - do you have information that the rest of us do not have about where he was when he first assessed the situation, where his handgun was at that very moment, and how far and through/around what he would have had to travel before he could take a shot that would not endanger anyone else? I am amazed at times how much folks either read into a report or assume (not presume, but ass-ume) about what was going on, or what they could have/would have done.

Am I the only one who seems to understand why our society does not want armed military walking about? Or has anyone else figured out that as much as it denies soldiers (generic term) their 2A rights and puts them at a disadvantage the alternative is considered even worse?

Sometimes I think that pounding away at the keyboard about these things is just a good way to burn off calories, because I'm just not getting through to anybody. But then, I need the exercise and since the rest of the body is beat up and broke I'll exercise what I can.

stay safe.

In Nevada, the ACLU does recognize the 2nd amendment as a Right. That is a start.

I am FOR arming uniformed military members. Or at least for not disarming them. They are citizens first.
I am not for arming them to conduct law enforcement operations, but see no reason to disarm them. Do you?

The reports are that Swagler assessed the situation, and did not feel comfortable going pistol - rifle, and stayed in a defensible location. Others would maybe choose different, but as they seem to forget, HE was the one on the scene, and the decision was HIS to make. On that one specific, I agree with you. Too many assume they would/could do better/different, without being there to know.

skidmark said:

Oh, heck! Badger Johnson finally says something that sounds like he agrees with me about the amount of bloodlust displayed by some posters, and you go and focus on a small, insignificant statement of carrying being a right that the courts may some day protect with as much vigor as they do other "rights". This was not a debate about abortion/right-to-life/women's-rights until you tried to make it into one.

And for all of you posters saying that Ralph Swagler is some sort of wuss or uncaring person or incompetent because he did not get his handgun to hand and rounds downrange fast enough to stop the shooter before he got inside the IHOP - do you have information that the rest of us do not have about where he was when he first assessed the situation, where his handgun was at that very moment, and how far and through/around what he would have had to travel before he could take a shot that would not endanger anyone else? I am amazed at times how much folks either read into a report or assume (not presume, but ass-ume) about what was going on, or what they could have/would have done.

Am I the only one who seems to understand why our society does not want armed military walking about? Or has anyone else figured out that as much as it denies soldiers (generic term) their 2A rights and puts them at a disadvantage the alternative is considered even worse?

Sometimes I think that pounding away at the keyboard about these things is just a good way to burn off calories, because I'm just not getting through to anybody. But then, I need the exercise and since the rest of the body is beat up and broke I'll exercise what I can.

stay safe.

Click to expand...

skidmark said:

Oh, heck! Badger Johnson finally says something that sounds like he agrees with me about the amount of bloodlust displayed by some posters, and you go and focus on a small, insignificant statement of carrying being a right that the courts may some day protect with as much vigor as they do other "rights". This was not a debate about abortion/right-to-life/women's-rights until you tried to make it into one.

And for all of you posters saying that Ralph Swagler is some sort of wuss or uncaring person or incompetent because he did not get his handgun to hand and rounds downrange fast enough to stop the shooter before he got inside the IHOP - do you have information that the rest of us do not have about where he was when he first assessed the situation, where his handgun was at that very moment, and how far and through/around what he would have had to travel before he could take a shot that would not endanger anyone else? I am amazed at times how much folks either read into a report or assume (not presume, but ass-ume) about what was going on, or what they could have/would have done.

Am I the only one who seems to understand why our society does not want armed military walking about? Or has anyone else figured out that as much as it denies soldiers (generic term) their 2A rights and puts them at a disadvantage the alternative is considered even worse?

Sometimes I think that pounding away at the keyboard about these things is just a good way to burn off calories, because I'm just not getting through to anybody. But then, I need the exercise and since the rest of the body is beat up and broke I'll exercise what I can.

stay safe.

Click to expand...

You are clearly trolling. I didn't bring up abortion, your boy badger Johnson did.

I never called ANYONE uncaring. I actually didn't say ANYTHING about Ralph Swagler. That whole paragraph was laughable, maybe it wasn't directed at me. But if it was you might want to re-read my post.

Am I the only one who seems to understand why our society does not want armed military walking about?

Click to expand...

I don't understand. Please explain.

Schlitz said:

I don't understand. Please explain.

Click to expand...

I think he forgets that our military service members are also citizens, and should not need to submit to being disarmed.

wrightme said:

I am FOR arming uniformed military members. Or at least for not disarming them. They are citizens first.
I am not for arming them to conduct law enforcement operations, but see no reason to disarm them. Do you?

Click to expand...

This is what I'm saying. I'm not suggesting armed airmen patrol the streets. I'm suggesting that as an American working mid shift in the military, if I want to go to IHOP after work with some friends I should be able to carry for defense. Me carrying a glock 23 in my waistband at IHOP is not the same as a flight of airman in riot gear posted on humvees at the street corner downtown. I feel you think these are the same thing.

I'm an American before an Airman, and I took an oath to support and defend the constitution. Yet you are against me practicing the rights protected by the constitution I took an oath to support? trololololol

We can all sit here and armchair quarterback till the cows come home, but it won't change anything. The truth is we DON'T KNOW how we will react until we are faced with a similar situation. It takes a few seconds at least to recognize what is going on, a bit longer to recognize a dangerous situation, simply because most of us aren't facing these types of situations on a daily basis. It simply takes longer to react to something that is out of the ordinary.

Then, many calculations are made mentally as to whether or not we should shoot, can we get our weapon into play in time, etc. Like it or not, most of us are going to do what we can to save ourselves first and others next, if there is time. I also agree that a pistol is no match for a rifle. My firearms instructor told me that if I was ever in a situation where someone was shooting at me with a rifle, to get the hell out of there if I could.

However, I feel I have a moral responsibility to help another person if I can. I would do for them what I would want someone to do for me in the same situation, if at all possible. A lot of people have died or been severely injured because no one wanted to "become involved." Criminals count on the fact that in all liklihood, no one is going to come to the aid of their victim. There are some laws that need to be changed so that if a person comes to the aid of another in good faith, that person should not be prosecuted.

I don't think Swagler did anything wrong or to be ashamed of. Hindsight is always 100%. You can always see afterward what you could have done differently. In the heat of the moment, you do what comes to mind, and that can involve a lot of things. I'm sure this will stay with him the rest of his life. I cannot judge the man because I don't know what I would have done in that situation, I only know what I THINK I would have done.

BTW, Skidmard is not a troll and never has been a troll. He is a respected person on this board and for good reason.

To the person who said they would have shot the perp as he came through the door-Really? At that time he hadn't committed a crime yet and you would have been guilty of murder.