Mass Shotting at South Carolina Club Averted By CCW Holder - Polidicks

[Quote]“His rounds struck 3 victims, and almost struck a fourth victim, who in self-defense, pulled his own weapon and fired, striking Thompson in the leg,” Lt. Kevin Bobo said. Lt. Bobo said the man who shot Mr. Thompson, who has not been identified, has a valid concealed weapons permit and will not face any charges.[/quote] [url]http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/30/concealed-carrier-takes-down-shooter-at-south-caro/[/url] This is why you never hear about mass shootings being stopped by CCW holders, because they stop them before they happen and it doesn't make the national news.

SC allows CHL holders to carry in places that serve alcohol. Its useful when the law isn't impeding the law abiding citizens.

[QUOTE=DaCommie1;50623416][url]http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/30/concealed-carrier-takes-down-shooter-at-south-caro/[/url] This is why you never hear about mass shootings being stopped by CCW holders, because they stop them before they happen and it doesn't make the national news.[/QUOTE] But it just did? And why when I click the source do I get a massive mugshot photo?

Would've been better if someone tackled the shooter from behind. This CCW holder earns no respect from me. [highlight](User was banned for this post ("shitposting" - Gurant))[/highlight]

[QUOTE=jiggu;50623486]And why when I click the source do I get a massive mugshot photo?[/QUOTE] Its the mobile version. Remove the m. in front the URL.

[QUOTE=MaximLaHaxim;50623495]Would've been better if someone tackled the shooter from behind. This CCW holder earns no respect from me.[/QUOTE] Your theorycraft holds rather little merit and seems chock full of stupid, unless you happen to have been a direct eyewitness.

[QUOTE=MaximLaHaxim;50623495]Would've been better if someone tackled the shooter from behind. This CCW holder earns no respect from me.[/QUOTE] Is posting under the influence still bannable?

[QUOTE=MaximLaHaxim;50623495]Would've been better if someone tackled the shooter from behind. This CCW holder earns no respect from me.[/QUOTE] You've been watching too much Batman if you think you can always get the jump on somebody.

[QUOTE=MaximLaHaxim;50623495]Would've been better if someone tackled the shooter from behind. This CCW holder earns no respect from me.[/QUOTE] This is bait, people. [editline]30th June 2016[/editline] In regards to the event, good shooting and immense respect for taking the situation into his own hands rather than cowering or fleeing

[QUOTE=jiggu;50623486]But it just did? And why when I click the source do I get a massive mugshot photo?[/QUOTE] Because it's the mobile version. This is why CC is great. This could have been a much worse tragedy if you didn't have bullets going in the other direction. Good thing he didn't target a "gun-free zone".

[QUOTE=MaximLaHaxim;50623495]Would've been better if someone tackled the shooter from behind. This CCW holder earns no respect from me.[/QUOTE] He literally acted in self defense to stop a killer from hurting more people than he already had. Don't act as though it's all in black and white - it isn't even like the guy's dead, and even if he did die as a result of his actions, dont forget that actions have consequences. If it means one life to save the lives of several others, I'd be willing to take that decision.

[QUOTE=MaximLaHaxim;50623495]Would've been better if someone tackled the shooter from behind. This CCW holder earns no respect from me.[/QUOTE] The person trying to tackle him would have more than likely been shot, and more people would have died. I'm not totally on board with the proliferation of guns, but this is an instance where a gun did save lives, and it's pretty dumb to try and pretend otherwise.

[QUOTE=MaximLaHaxim;50623495]Would've been better if someone tackled the shooter from behind. This CCW holder earns no respect from me.[/QUOTE] You go up to tackle this guy with a gun, he spins around and plugs you with a round. Even if he was knocked over that doesn't stop his ability to fire his weapon, returning fire is faster than trying to get up close and tackle him.

[QUOTE=MaximLaHaxim;50623495]Would've been better if someone tackled the shooter from behind. This CCW holder earns no respect from me.[/QUOTE] Do you have shooter takedown fantasies or something? Serious question. Nobody in their right mind attempts to tackle an active shooter.

I bet if the shooter had one of those newfangled, ultra-deadly AR-15 guns then no one could have stopped him. Those things are semi-automatic, and can fire as fast as you can pull the trigger! There's no way this guy, with his little pistol, would've stood a chance. :downs:

[QUOTE=MaximLaHaxim;50623495]Would've been better if someone tackled the shooter from behind. This CCW holder earns no respect from me.[/QUOTE] One of the 50 people who died in the Orlando shooting should have tackled the shooter, 53 of the people who were injured should have tackled him, or any one of the hundreds of people that were in that night club should have tackled him. But it's almost like the world doesn't work that way, and nobody wants to run towards a person with a gun when they themselves are unarmed. You need to grow up and move out of your little idealistic fairy-tale land and realize the world doesn't work like an action movie. The actions of the CCW carrier at this bar saved the lives of dozens, and you refuse him merit because he didn't incapacitate the shooter in a safer manner? You need to grow up bud.

[QUOTE=MaximLaHaxim;50623495]Would've been better if someone tackled the shooter from behind. This CCW holder earns no respect from me.[/QUOTE] Here is what happen when you try to tackle someone with a gun: [video]https://youtube.com/watch?v=AvzpdhMMNDo[/video] [editline]1st July 2016[/editline] Obviously different scenarios, but it puts you and the people around at even higher risk [editline]1st July 2016[/editline] Obviously different scenarios, but it puts you and the people around at even higher risk

[QUOTE=MaximLaHaxim;50623495]Would've been better if someone tackled the shooter from behind. This CCW holder earns no respect from me.[/QUOTE] It would be irresponsible not to use deadly force to stop them instantly and reliably, it's not worth risking the lives of innocent people to try to subdue the shooter non-lethally.

[QUOTE=Protocol7;50623587]Do you have shooter takedown fantasies or something? Serious question. Nobody in their right mind attempts to tackle an active shooter.[/QUOTE] His post was dumb bait just trying to stir shit up, but to be fair, don't some "active shooter" response classes for unarmed civilians basically advocate doing just this? Swarm the shooter, pile up on him? The idea being that he may be able to shoot one or two of you before the group is on him, but if you just try to run or hide then he will be able to fire with impunity, killing many more people. I've always thought that sounded good in theory. In practice, however, I'm less certain. When shots actually start being fired, the vast majority of people are going to panic. How do you trigger a "fight" response in people that are in full "flight" mode?

[QUOTE=27X;50623508]Your theorycraft holds rather little merit and seems chock full of stupid, unless you happen to have been a direct eyewitness.[/QUOTE] I think it was a reference to the fact that whether there is a thread about a cup shooting somebody the first 20 posts are "why didn't they use their taser" or something similar. Or it was just a straight up shit post

[QUOTE=Protocol7;50623587]Do you have shooter takedown fantasies or something? Serious question. Nobody in their right mind attempts to tackle an active shooter.[/QUOTE] Yeah and that's why people die, because they're too scared to act when they're trapped and against the wall. In last ditch scenarios when you can't feasibly run away or hide the best course is to fight the shooter.

[QUOTE=Ignhelper;50623677]Here is what happen when you try to tackle someone with a gun: [video]https://youtube.com/watch?v=AvzpdhMMNDo[/video] [editline]1st July 2016[/editline] Obviously different scenarios, but it puts you and the people around at even higher risk [editline]1st July 2016[/editline] Obviously different scenarios, but it puts you and the people around at even higher risk[/QUOTE] Oh fuck I remember this, it's so tragic. It's such a shame the poor man died. I don't know how the situation would have gone otherwise however. What if the police stalled too much and the asshole ended up shooting the hostage instead?

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;50623795]His post was dumb bait just trying to stir shit up, but to be fair, don't some "active shooter" response classes for unarmed civilians basically advocate doing just this? Swarm the shooter, pile up on him? The idea being that he may be able to shoot one or two of you before the group is on him, but if you just try to run or hide then he will be able to fire with impunity, killing many more people. I've always thought that sounded good in theory. In practice, however, I'm less certain. When shots actually start being fired, the vast majority of people are going to panic. How do you trigger a "fight" response in people that are in full "flight" mode?[/QUOTE] yeah, "one of you dies or all of you die" it's sorta like the railroad switch dilemma, no one wants to do something that will directly kill them (or someone else) even if doing nothing will kill even more people

[QUOTE=DaCommie1;50623416][url]http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/30/concealed-carrier-takes-down-shooter-at-south-caro/[/url] This is why you never hear about mass shootings being stopped by CCW holders, because they stop them before they happen and it doesn't make the national news.[/QUOTE] This is like the idea that autism is caused by vaccines. 100 case studies say it isn't, one says it does and you don't get your child vaccinated. How many mass shootings aren't stopped by ccw holders? How many don't act because they're also in fear of their lives? The shooting in San Bernardino is an example of that, two ccw holders in the area and they both turn coat and ran, instead of turning cowboy and shooting the active shooters. This is one case out of many, which shouldn't serve as a justification of the idea of ccw permits. I know very very few ccw holders ever commit a crime, but one case isn't a justification for the entire thing. You don't hear of mass shooting stopped by ccw holders because there aren't many that are, not because the media is covering them up. [editline]1st July 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Big Dumb American;50623795]His post was dumb bait just trying to stir shit up, but to be fair, don't some "active shooter" response classes for unarmed civilians basically advocate doing just this? Swarm the shooter, pile up on him? The idea being that he may be able to shoot one or two of you before the group is on him, but if you just try to run or hide then he will be able to fire with impunity, killing many more people. I've always thought that sounded good in theory. In practice, however, I'm less certain. When shots actually start being fired, the vast majority of people are going to panic. How do you trigger a "fight" response in people that are in full "flight" mode?[/QUOTE] In the vast majority of cases ccw holders know what the shooter is capable of and want to get the hell out of Dodge if they hear gunshots. My father in law is a ccw holder, my brother in law as well, and both say it's better to get away than risk more injuries or people getting killed.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;50623795]His post was dumb bait just trying to stir shit up, but to be fair, don't some "active shooter" response classes for unarmed civilians basically advocate doing just this? Swarm the shooter, pile up on him? The idea being that he may be able to shoot one or two of you before the group is on him, but if you just try to run or hide then he will be able to fire with impunity, killing many more people. I've always thought that sounded good in theory. In practice, however, I'm less certain. When shots actually start being fired, the vast majority of people are going to panic. How do you trigger a "fight" response in people that are in full "flight" mode?[/QUOTE] I know some schools teach this; swarm the attacker and just use sheer body weight to pin them down. But you need more than one person to do this and it's hard to coordinate people when everyone is running for the door. [editline]1st July 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=TheDestroyerOfall;50624147]This is like the idea that autism is caused by vaccines. 100 case studies say it isn't, one says it does and you don't get your child vaccinated. How many mass shootings aren't stopped by ccw holders? How many don't act because they're also in fear of their lives? The shooting in San Bernardino is an example of that, two ccw holders in the area and they both turn coat and ran, instead of turning cowboy and shooting the active shooters. This is one case out of many, which shouldn't serve as a justification of the idea of ccw permits. I know very very few ccw holders ever commit a crime, but one case isn't a justification for the entire thing. You don't hear of mass shooting stopped by ccw holders because there aren't many that are, not because the media is covering them up. [editline]1st July 2016[/editline] In the vast majority of cases ccw holders know what the shooter is capable of and want to get the hell out of Dodge if they hear gunshots. My father in law is a ccw holder, my brother in law as well, and both say it's better to get away than risk more injuries or people getting killed.[/QUOTE] The concept of CCW isn't to stop mass shootings or for people to play the action hero, it's for self defense. It's for when you're about to get mugged in an alley or when someone is threatening your personal safety. Overall, mass shootings are an anomaly in crime. All of them are different and no 2 are similar. Most shootings in the US are targeted, either gang on gang violence or 2 people settling a confrontation. Not many shootings in the US are indiscriminate like the one in Orlando or the one in Sandy Hook. So not all the scenarios for shooting crime in the US are the same and because of that you can't expect a person to put their lives on the line, or even other peoples lives on the line due to their aim, just to try and stop a shooting that may end after one shot, or 200. Saying to get rid of CCW permits as a whole because they can't prevent every shooting or even every mass shooting is just silly. It's like saying we should get rid of governors in cars just because a handful of people disable them.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;50623795]His post was dumb bait just trying to stir shit up, but to be fair, don't some "active shooter" response classes for unarmed civilians basically advocate doing just this? Swarm the shooter, pile up on him? The idea being that he may be able to shoot one or two of you before the group is on him, but if you just try to run or hide then he will be able to fire with impunity, killing many more people. I've always thought that sounded good in theory. In practice, however, I'm less certain. When shots actually start being fired, the vast majority of people are going to panic. How do you trigger a "fight" response in people that are in full "flight" mode?[/QUOTE] You'd have to be extraordinarily brave or stupid to rush a guy* with a gun, man. The tactic does reminds me of those bees that swarm hornets attacking their nests, causing them to overheat.

[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;50624880]I know some schools teach this; swarm the attacker and just use sheer body weight to pin them down. But you need more than one person to do this and it's hard to coordinate people when everyone is running for the door. [editline]1st July 2016[/editline] The concept of CCW isn't to stop mass shootings or for people to play the action hero, it's for self defense. It's for when you're about to get mugged in an alley or when someone is threatening your personal safety. Overall, mass shootings are an anomaly in crime. All of them are different and no 2 are similar. Most shootings in the US are targeted, either gang on gang violence or 2 people settling a confrontation. Not many shootings in the US are indiscriminate like the one in Orlando or the one in Sandy Hook. So not all the scenarios for shooting crime in the US are the same and because of that you can't expect a person to put their lives on the line, or even other peoples lives on the line due to their aim, just to try and stop a shooting that may end after one shot, or 200. Saying to get rid of CCW permits as a whole because they can't prevent every shooting or even every mass shooting is just silly. It's like saying we should get rid of governors in cars just because a handful of people disable them.[/QUOTE] I never said to abolish all ccws and otherwise, rather not to use this one example of ccws working to justify the entire use of them. I agree with your other points, but a huge line of argument stems from the use of mass shootings to justify ccws and more guns. Just look at trump and others trying to say if everyone at the Orlando shooting had guns tragedies like this wouldn't happen. One example of a situation like this working out favorably does not justify all the risks is all I'm saying.

[QUOTE=TheDestroyerOfall;50625939]I never said to abolish all ccws and otherwise, rather not to use this one example of ccws working to justify the entire use of them. I agree with your other points, but a huge line of argument stems from the use of mass shootings to justify ccws and more guns. Just look at trump and others trying to say if everyone at the Orlando shooting had guns tragedies like this wouldn't happen. One example of a situation like this working out favorably does not justify all the risks is all I'm saying.[/QUOTE] Don't immediately point to Trump as some sort of gun ownership wisdom or even as a voice for gun owners because he is everything but. Even the fucking NRA disagreed with him on patrons at the nightclub having guns, because such an idea is just silly. Guns and alcohol don't mix.

[QUOTE=Luni;50624127]yeah, "one of you dies or all of you die" it's sorta like the railroad switch dilemma, no one wants to do something that will directly kill them (or someone else) even if doing nothing will kill even more people[/QUOTE] Prisoners dilemma.

[QUOTE=TheDestroyerOfall;50625939]I never said to abolish all ccws and otherwise, rather not to use this one example of ccws working to justify the entire use of them. I agree with your other points, but a huge line of argument stems from the use of mass shootings to justify ccws and more guns. Just look at trump and others trying to say if everyone at the Orlando shooting had guns tragedies like this wouldn't happen. One example of a situation like this working out favorably does not justify all the risks is all I'm saying.[/QUOTE] And plenty of people feel the same way about using tragedies to justify gun control.