Active Shooter Vs. Armed Citizens Scenario

[Jetboogieman]

Okay.

So let me first say, before we even get into this conversation, THIS THREAD IS NOT.

CATEGORICALLY NOT, ABOUT GUN CONTROL, BANNING GUNS, OR ANYTHING OF THE SORT.

But what I do want to discuss, is something that I’ve thought about a little bit in terms of, pro-gun advocates would say that lots of armed citizens, would stop a mass shooter, but there is one thing I do think about in terms of the reality of a situation such as the scenario I show here in my diagram.

So let’s take this mall, I don’t know where this mall is, just grabbed a layout, but let’s say for argument sake, a shooter enters the mall, shown there, and begins to open fire, all the green spots represent an armed citizen that may be able to stop it, but doesn’t this scenario represent an extreme cluster ****.

A malls winding hallways, sharp corners, people would be running everywhere, how in such a scenario, would each armed citizen be able to distinguish each other from the shooter and wouldn’t it create a dangerous situation for the armed citizens when the police arrived, as now they’ve got armed people all over the building that potentially, they can’t easily distinguish from the shooter in the chaos.

Again this is not; absolutely not meant to be about banning guns or gun control, but more, the tactical reality of what I have presented here and how it would actually play out.

Wouldn’t it appear, even if you are a pro-gun advocate, that this situation potentially creates more problems than it solves?

 

[Desert Storm]

All I know is this, if I were in a mall and an active shooter was loose, I sure as hell would fancy my chances more if I were packing then if I were not packing

 

[ecofarm]

Easy.

First, teleport behind him. Then cast dexterity boost. Then maybe drink a potion and read a scroll. After that, you should win initiative and just use incapacitating skills and spells until done.

 

[Jetboogieman]

Just want to say as well, I swear I did not see this thread, before making this one:

https://www.debatepolitics.com/brea...d-man-killed-officer-likely-did-not-fire.html

 

[jimbo]

Okay.

So let me first say, before we even get into this conversation, THIS THREAD IS NOT.

CATEGORICALLY NOT, ABOUT GUN CONTROL, BANNING GUNS, OR ANYTHING OF THE SORT.

But what I do want to discuss, is something that I’ve thought about a little bit in terms of, pro-gun advocates would say that lots of armed citizens, would stop a mass shooter, but there is one thing I do think about in terms of the reality of a situation such as the scenario I show here in my diagram.

So let’s take this mall, I don’t know where this mall is, just grabbed a layout, but let’s say for argument sake, a shooter enters the mall, shown there, and begins to open fire, all the green spots represent an armed citizen that may be able to stop it, but doesn’t this scenario represent an extreme cluster ****.

A malls winding hallways, sharp corners, people would be running everywhere, how in such a scenario, would each armed citizen be able to distinguish each other from the shooter and wouldn’t it create a dangerous situation for the armed citizens when the police arrived, as now they’ve got armed people all over the building that potentially, they can’t easily distinguish from the shooter in the chaos.

Again this is not; absolutely not meant to be about banning guns or gun control, but more, the tactical reality of what I have presented here and how it would actually play out.

Wouldn’t it appear, even if you are a pro-gun advocate, that this situation potentially creates more problems than it solves?

View attachment 67244858

It seems to me that you are trying to make a case for gun control by not talking about gun control.

 

[Skeptic Bob]

There is a magic number, that certainly changes from situation to situation. And it is the number of armed citizens that make such a situation better vs the number of armed citizens that make the situation worse. I certainly believe, and it seems the case that one armed citizen is certainly better than no armed citizens. But as soon as you go over one armed citizen, it becomes really difficult to predict as it would be so situation dependent. If all the armed citizens knew who the shooter was then I would say the more the merrier. But if they were just reacting to the shots and didn’t see the shooter, then having a bunch of armed citizens could make things more dangerous.

But here is the thing. Even if you ease gun laws across the country making it so anyone could concealed carry, the vast majority of people won’t do it on any regular basis. So if you find yourself in an active shooter situation, it is unlikely to be one with a bunch of armed citizens.

 

[Jetboogieman]

It seems to me that you are trying to make a case for gun control by not talking about gun control.

Well in my experience, you would say that, because if one makes a gun thread, that doesn't praise to high heaven, the sacred gun, praises the founding fathers and talks passionately about bringing down tyrants, with tears streaming down your face with Hymn of the Republic playing in the background, it's automatically assumed to be anti-gun and that person is going to be dog piled.

 

[markjs]

It seems to me that you are trying to make a case for gun control by not talking about gun control.

Of course it does in your fear obsessed "they're gonna take my guns" mind. Remember when Obama baneed guns and seized them and threw you in the awful FEMA camp, while he was founding ISIS? Of course you do and you're never gonna allow freedumb hating commie libtards ever do that again are you?[/sarcsm]

 

[independentusa]

There is a magic number, that certainly changes from situation to situation. And it is the number of armed citizens that make such a situation better vs the number of armed citizens that make the situation worse. I certainly believe, and it seems the case that one armed citizen is certainly better than no armed citizens. But as soon as you go over one armed citizen, it becomes really difficult to predict as it would be so situation dependent. If all the armed citizens knew who the shooter was then I would say the more the merrier. But if they were just reacting to the shots and didn’t see the shooter, then having a bunch of armed citizens could make things more dangerous.

But here is the thing. Even if you ease gun laws across the country making it so anyone could concealed carry, the vast majority of people won’t do it on any regular basis. So if you find yourself in an active shooter situation, it is unlikely to be one with a bunch of armed citizens.

I would be worried about the police. In a recent situation a shooter came into a bar and started shooting. The bouncer was armed and took the gunman down and was kneeling on his back with the gun pointed at him when the police arrived. The policeman shot the bouncer and killed him. All the policeman saw was a black man holding another down and aiming a gun at the man on the ground. even though the patrons were yelling that the man was security. In the moment the shooter lived and the "hero" died. When there is any kind of shooting, Having a gun makes you a target when the police arrive, no matter what your situation.

 

[markjs]

Well in my experience, you would say that, because if one makes a gun thread, that doesn't praise to high heaven, the sacred gun, praises the founding fathers and talks passionately about bringing down tyrants, with tears streaming down your face with Hymn of the Republic playing in the background, it's automatically assumed to be anti-gun and that person is going to be dog piled.

No, even if you did that he would see through your evil librul gun grabbing tactic. Trying to lure him into giving up his freedumb willingly. Obama seized his guns once already and Hillary almost did it again. He had to live under the brutal merciless HUSSEIN Obama era!

How can you fault his patritoic heart? My god, why do you hate 'murica? Why don't you guy buy some girl an abortion or whatever it is you EVIL Libruls do for kicks! Or go recruit some illegals to vote for your commie leaders! Big libtard bullies!

 

[Skeptic Bob]

I would be worried about the police. In a recent situation a shooter came into a bar and started shooting. The bouncer was armed and took the gunman down and was kneeling on his back with the gun pointed at him when the police arrived. The policeman shot the bouncer and killed him. All the policeman saw was a black man holding another down and aiming a gun at the man on the ground. even though the patrons were yelling that the man was security. In the moment the shooter lived and the "hero" died. When there is any kind of shooting, Having a gun makes you a target when the police arrive, no matter what your situation.

Yeah, but that story is so notable BECAUSE it is so rare. In the vast majority of cases the armed citizen immediately sets down their weapon and the police act responsibly.

 

[markjs]

Well now that I'm done (for now) with my sarcasm, I will say I agree with you, there is no rational discussion with much of the pro gun crowd. Anything that makes guns seem negative is "gun control". It's a psychosis for some.:roll:

Rational discussion on guns in 'murica? IDK if that will EVER be possible, with the NRA lobby what it is.

 

[Jetboogieman]

No, even if you did that he would see through your evil librul gun grabbing tactic. Trying to lure him into giving up his freedumb willingly. Obama seized his guns once already and Hillary almost did it again. He had to live under the brutal merciless HUSSEIN Obama era!

How can you fault his patritoic heart? My god, why do you hate 'murica? Why don't you guy buy some girl an abortion or whatever it is you EVIL Libruls do for kicks! Or go recruit some illegals to vote for your commie leaders! Big libtard bullies!

 

[markjs]

Pesonally I've always felt we should do away with handguns. The VAST majority of shootings and crimes are handguns, concealed weapons are ideal for crime.

Assault rifles tho, even fully automatic, I'd allow. Mass shootings with automatic weapons are exceedingly rare. Most full grown men cannot handle a fully automatic rifle very accurately, and lastly assault rifles and shotguns make for excellent home or property defense and are in the spirit of what the founders envisoned logically. I'm not sure they ever gev real thought to high capacily pocket pistols, and I doubt they'd look at such weapons in the same way as rifles at all.

Implementing that would be a nightmare, I have no idea how ir if it could be done, but it's my idea anyway.

The NRA indoctrinated can't be reasoned with was my point. It's like trying to get a TRump fan to see him as anything but the ulitmate successful businessman. There's nothing rational about it, they're convinced and no evidence to the contrary is anything but fake news.

 

[markjs]

As for your OP tho, yeah, I think "good guy with a gun" is one of the silliest arguments, but yeah it persists.

 

[ecofarm]

But here is the thing. Even if you ease gun laws across the country making it so anyone could concealed carry, the vast majority of people won’t do it on any regular basis. So if you find yourself in an active shooter situation, it is unlikely to be one with a bunch of armed citizens.

If I don't have mine, other people having theirs is great. I say to a soccer mom (or the average guy, no offense), "82nd, I'll advance, arm me" and I have a weapon.

 

[VanceMack]

Okay.

So let me first say, before we even get into this conversation, THIS THREAD IS NOT.

CATEGORICALLY NOT, ABOUT GUN CONTROL, BANNING GUNS, OR ANYTHING OF THE SORT.

But what I do want to discuss, is something that I’ve thought about a little bit in terms of, pro-gun advocates would say that lots of armed citizens, would stop a mass shooter, but there is one thing I do think about in terms of the reality of a situation such as the scenario I show here in my diagram.

So let’s take this mall, I don’t know where this mall is, just grabbed a layout, but let’s say for argument sake, a shooter enters the mall, shown there, and begins to open fire, all the green spots represent an armed citizen that may be able to stop it, but doesn’t this scenario represent an extreme cluster ****.

A malls winding hallways, sharp corners, people would be running everywhere, how in such a scenario, would each armed citizen be able to distinguish each other from the shooter and wouldn’t it create a dangerous situation for the armed citizens when the police arrived, as now they’ve got armed people all over the building that potentially, they can’t easily distinguish from the shooter in the chaos.

Again this is not; absolutely not meant to be about banning guns or gun control, but more, the tactical reality of what I have presented here and how it would actually play out.

Wouldn’t it appear, even if you are a pro-gun advocate, that this situation potentially creates more problems than it solves?

View attachment 67244858

The problem is that there was only one armed citizen. Imagine how many less shots might have been fired if there was an armed citizen at BBand Y or Dave and Busters. In the scenario you describe, 1 armed citizen in a mall is as problematic as having an armed guard or even law enforcement personnel assigned at schools. Many people dont realize that Columbine HS actually had law enforcement on site at the time of the shooting...and they didnt engage for nearly an hour and a half. The first shots began at 11:19. The two committed suicide at 12:08. Police didnt enter the building til 1pm.

The question of whether or not a "good guy with a gun" would have made the situation worse has to take into account the reality of what happens when there is NO police response.

Conversely, the Trolley Square Mall shooting in Salt Lake City was stopped when an armed citizen...an off duty police officer...engaged the shooter.

In May of this year, 28-year old Alexander Tilghman began firing at a crowd of people in a restaurant. He was stopped by two armed civilians, 35-year-old Juan Carlos Nazario and 39-year-old Bryan Whittle.

Also in May of this year an armed resource officer stopped a 19 year old assailant after he fired 9 rounds at a Dixon High School. The only person injured was the initial shooter.

Since this thread isnt in the subtext of promoting gun control, then it would be fair to ask if the parents of the children at Sandy Hook take more comfort in knowing that there was NO ONE available to stop a shooter as he went on an unhindered shooting spree for nearly 10 minutes with no resistance, or if they would have rather had at least 1 teacher, 1 janitor, 1 school administrator stop the attacker. Since we KNOW it took law enforcement over 10 minutes to arrive and muster at the schyool and nearly 20 minutes...10 minutes after the last shot was fired...to engage, the question as to whether an armed citizen might cause more problems seems rather insignificant.

 

[joko104]

The shooter(s) would be the person shooting people. :roll:

There is another factor. Once someone other than the shooter starts shooting - if you even just shoot into the ceiling or floor - the shooter will tend to 1.) flee or 2.) kill himself. Either way, the focus is no longer shooting people and more about the shooter's own survival to himself. So it may not even be necessary to shoot anyone, just the sound of gun shots.

As for the police appearing? ANYONE with a gun should immediately drop it and either raise their hands palms out OR lay down spread eagle on the floor face down and the gun away not in reach the moment they see police regardless of the situation. Of course there is risk coming to the defense of others when instead you could just flee.

The flaw in the OP message is a common flaw of the argument of all anti-gunners. The question is that since there can not be certain perfection in all self defense or defense of others situations with a firearm, then no one should ever try or be able to do so - meaning just assuring a superior situation if everyone but murderers and police are defenseless.

The answer to the question, of course, it is circumstantial. Being at opposite ends of the mall likely an armed citizen could do nothing.

 

[Xelor]

It seems to me that you are trying to make a case for gun control by not talking about gun control.

It seems so because you're reading that into what the OP-er wrote and what you infer may be among his rhetorical purposes for the thread. You see, regardless of what it seem like to you, the OP-er was very clear to ward readers from construing any of his OP's remarks as allusions to or remarks upon or anything else having to do with gun control. He did so using a "big red crayon," for ****'s sake. How does one miss that?

Just read what the OP-er wrote and it's clear he's not making any sort of case for anything other than (1) what types of scenarios are and aren't tactically manageable, most especially by laymen bereft of coherent communications with one another, (2) what's scenarios aren't thus manageable, and (3) by whom such a dynamic setting as presented in the OP, can be aptly managed. While he's tacitly remarking and soliciting thoughts regarding those three qualities of the scenario he presented, there is also the integrated permutations of them to consider.

That much, at the very least, would have been glaringly evident to you had you carefully read the OP rather than just assuming whatever the hell you did that led you to post the above remark. Then again, I could be mistaken in crediting you with having reading comprehension skills adequate enough to see that is what th thread is about....

 

[independentusa]

The shooter(s) would be the person shooting people. :roll:

There is another factor. Once someone other than the shooter starts shooting - if you even just shoot into the ceiling or floor - the shooter will tend to 1.) flee or 2.) kill himself. Either way, the focus is no longer shooting people and more about the shooter's own survival to himself. So it may not even be necessary to shoot anyone, just the sound of gun shots.

As for the police appearing? ANYONE with a gun should immediately drop it and either raise their hands palms out OR lay down spread eagle on the floor face down and the gun away not in reach the moment they see police regardless of the situation. Of course there is risk coming to the defense of others when instead you could just flee.

The flaw in the OP message is a common flaw of the argument of all anti-gunners. The claim is that since there can not be certain perfection in all self defense or defense of others situations with a firearm, then no one should ever try or be able to do so - meaning just assuring a superior situation if everyone but murderers and police are defenseless.

In many of the cases, the police or armed guards are killed by a better armed shooter. What chance does a person armed with a hand gun have against a man with an AR15.

 

[Xelor]

The problem is that there was only one armed citizen. Imagine how many less shots might have been fired if there was an armed citizen at BBand Y or Dave and Busters.

Just so I know about what/whom you've written:

• Who/what is "BBand Y?" I'm not really sure if "BBand" is supposed to be one or two "words," but I don't see anything that says Brooks Brothers....but if "BB" is one word, then what's "Y?" I looked for a YMCA/YWCA, and I don't see one of them either.
• Who is Dave? I don't see anyone thus named/labelled in the mall graphic.
• Who is Buster? I also don't see anyone labelled/named Buster.

 

[joko104]

In many of the cases, the police or armed guards are killed by a better armed shooter. What chance does a person armed with a hand gun have against a man with an AR15.

Biggest gun doesn't win. The one who hits the other solidly wins. Spraying out a gob of bullets can hit a crowd, but will rarely hit a specific target. That is why the Marines shifted from full auto to a max of 3 bursts for most rifles.

In the senario of the OP, the armed citizen has the clear advantage. The shooter is known because of his shooting and the sound of his shooting. Of all the people scrambling the shooter has no way to know if there is any armed citizen 360 degrees around him and who may well not be in the open. Size of the gun or how many it holds isn't a factor. It is who shoots the other. Shooter has an AR15. Armed citizen shoots in the upper torso with a 9mm - front or in the back - and armed citizen wins. After shooting, even if missing, if the citizen simply ducks behind something the shooter may have no clue where the shot(s) came from other than general direction. The focus of the shooter now is no longer killing people, but his own self defense.

 

[joko104]

In many of the cases, the police or armed guards are killed by a better armed shooter. What chance does a person armed with a hand gun have against a man with an AR15.

When police are killed it is generally on surprise or by a sniper. Few police are killed once there is a shoot-out going on.

 

[Mycroft]

Okay.

So let me first say, before we even get into this conversation, THIS THREAD IS NOT.

CATEGORICALLY NOT, ABOUT GUN CONTROL, BANNING GUNS, OR ANYTHING OF THE SORT.

But what I do want to discuss, is something that I’ve thought about a little bit in terms of, pro-gun advocates would say that lots of armed citizens, would stop a mass shooter, but there is one thing I do think about in terms of the reality of a situation such as the scenario I show here in my diagram.

So let’s take this mall, I don’t know where this mall is, just grabbed a layout, but let’s say for argument sake, a shooter enters the mall, shown there, and begins to open fire, all the green spots represent an armed citizen that may be able to stop it, but doesn’t this scenario represent an extreme cluster ****.

A malls winding hallways, sharp corners, people would be running everywhere, how in such a scenario, would each armed citizen be able to distinguish each other from the shooter and wouldn’t it create a dangerous situation for the armed citizens when the police arrived, as now they’ve got armed people all over the building that potentially, they can’t easily distinguish from the shooter in the chaos.

Again this is not; absolutely not meant to be about banning guns or gun control, but more, the tactical reality of what I have presented here and how it would actually play out.

Wouldn’t it appear, even if you are a pro-gun advocate, that this situation potentially creates more problems than it solves?

In a real life situation, only the two armed citizens in the circled area would be in a position to react to the shooter. The police or mall security would likely get to the scene before any of the other armed citizens. So it's not likely there would be a crowd of armed people for the officials to sort through.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Okay.

So let me first say, before we even get into this conversation, THIS THREAD IS NOT.

CATEGORICALLY NOT, ABOUT GUN CONTROL, BANNING GUNS, OR ANYTHING OF THE SORT.

But what I do want to discuss, is something that I’ve thought about a little bit in terms of, pro-gun advocates would say that lots of armed citizens, would stop a mass shooter, but there is one thing I do think about in terms of the reality of a situation such as the scenario I show here in my diagram.

So let’s take this mall, I don’t know where this mall is, just grabbed a layout, but let’s say for argument sake, a shooter enters the mall, shown there, and begins to open fire, all the green spots represent an armed citizen that may be able to stop it, but doesn’t this scenario represent an extreme cluster ****.

A malls winding hallways, sharp corners, people would be running everywhere, how in such a scenario, would each armed citizen be able to distinguish each other from the shooter and wouldn’t it create a dangerous situation for the armed citizens when the police arrived, as now they’ve got armed people all over the building that potentially, they can’t easily distinguish from the shooter in the chaos.

Again this is not; absolutely not meant to be about banning guns or gun control, but more, the tactical reality of what I have presented here and how it would actually play out.

Wouldn’t it appear, even if you are a pro-gun advocate, that this situation potentially creates more problems than it solves?

View attachment 67244858

You assume every armed citizen is going to chase after a bad guy with a gun?? That would be incredibly stupid. I can’t speak for others who carry concealed, but in a scenario like yours my primary concern would my family, myself, and those in closest proximity that I could attempt to help. Beyond that I’m sorry, but I don’t intend to be “the good samaritan” mistakenly killed by police or another good samaritan.

Pesonally I've always felt we should do away with handguns. The VAST majority of shootings and crimes are handguns, concealed weapons are ideal for crime.

They are also very useful for self protection and the protection of others
Gun Facts | Gun Control Facts Concerning Concealed Carry