Why Student with a concealed weapon didn't confront the Umpqua shooter.

pbrauer · Oct 3, 2015

His reason was for his safety, not from the shooter, but from SWAT teams who might mistake him for the shooter. Kinda shoots down the theory the more guns the better argument.

Vet with concealed weapon explains why he didn't shoot in Umpqua

A veteran who says he was carrying a concealed weapon on the UCC campus Thursday when 26-year-old Christopher Harper Mercer went on a murderous rampage, says he didn’t intervene because he knew police SWAT team members wouldn’t know him from the shooter.

In an interview with MSNBC, vet John Parker said he knows lots of students who conceal carry at the school because, despite a school policy that discourages weapons on campus, Oregon state law does allow it.

...Parker explained that his military training provided him with the skills to “go into danger,” but said he felt lucky he and others didn’t try to get involved going after Mercer.

“Luckily we made the choice not to get involved,” he explained. “We were quite a distance away from the building where this was happening. And we could have opened ourselves up to be potential targets ourselves, and not knowing where SWAT was, their response time, they wouldn’t know who we were. And if we had our guns ready to shoot, they could think that we were bad guys.”

faithful_servant · Oct 3, 2015

pbrauer said:
His reason was for his safety, not from the shooter, but from SWAT teams who might mistake him for the shooter. Kinda shoots down the theory the more guns the better argument.

Vet with concealed weapon explains why he didn't shoot in Umpqua

A veteran who says he was carrying a concealed weapon on the UCC campus Thursday when 26-year-old Christopher Harper Mercer went on a murderous rampage, says he didn’t intervene because he knew police SWAT team members wouldn’t know him from the shooter.

In an interview with MSNBC, vet John Parker said he knows lots of students who conceal carry at the school because, despite a school policy that discourages weapons on campus, Oregon state law does allow it.

...Parker explained that his military training provided him with the skills to “go into danger,” but said he felt lucky he and others didn’t try to get involved going after Mercer.

“Luckily we made the choice not to get involved,” he explained. “We were quite a distance away from the building where this was happening. And we could have opened ourselves up to be potential targets ourselves, and not knowing where SWAT was, their response time, they wouldn’t know who we were. And if we had our guns ready to shoot, they could think that we were bad guys.”

Well that's a stupid argument. Had he stopped the shooter, the SWAT teams would have had no reason to be shooting anyone. Plus, if he was concerned about being shot, then all he had to was follow the instructions of the officers and when instructed to put his weapon on the ground, simply followed those instructions. So basically the guy is dumb and dumb is a pathetic excuse for doing the right thing.

Unitedwestand13 · Oct 3, 2015

faithful_servant said:
Well that's a stupid argument. Had he stopped the shooter, the SWAT teams would have had no reason to be shooting anyone. Plus, if he was concerned about being shot, then all he had to was follow the instructions of the officers and when instructed to put his weapon on the ground, simply followed those instructions. So basically the guy is dumb and dumb is a pathetic excuse for doing the right thing.

if this veteran, in the panic of the moment, drew his gun and went after the shooter no one at the time would be able to tell the difference between him and the killer.

Goshin · Oct 3, 2015

Unitedwestand13 said:
if this veteran, in the panic of the moment, drew his gun and went after the shooter no one at the time would be able to tell the difference between him and the killer.

Oddly enough there are interventions by armed citizens on a weekly basis where this consequence does not arise. That is to say, they do not get gunned down by SWAT or regular police... generally because it is all over long before either arrives.

Now if SWAT or uniformed officers are already present, that's different.

BmanMcfly · Oct 3, 2015

Unitedwestand13 said:
if this veteran, in the panic of the moment, drew his gun and went after the shooter no one at the time would be able to tell the difference between him and the killer.

There's a way around that, example:
Make loud statements / questions : "where is he", "I'm here to help", etc...

foadi · Oct 3, 2015

BmanMcfly said:
There's a way around that, example:
Make loud statements / questions : "where is he", "I'm here to help", etc...

Yeah, calling attention to yourself when trying to take out a raving lunatic shooting anything that moves sounds like a great plan.

countryboy · Oct 3, 2015

Goshin said:
Oddly enough there are interventions by armed citizens on a weekly basis where this consequence does not arise. That is to say, they do not get gunned down by SWAT or regular police... generally because it is all over long before either arrives.

Now if SWAT or uniformed officers are already present, that's different.

Exactly, this guy wasn't in a position to intervene. For him to claim he "chose not to act" is kind of silly. Now, had an armed citizen been in close proximity to the shooter, things might have turned out very differently.

BobbyO · Oct 3, 2015

pbrauer said:
His reason was for his safety, not from the shooter, but from SWAT teams who might mistake him for the shooter. Kinda shoots down the theory the more guns the better argument.

Vet with concealed weapon explains why he didn't shoot in Umpqua

A veteran who says he was carrying a concealed weapon on the UCC campus Thursday when 26-year-old Christopher Harper Mercer went on a murderous rampage, says he didn’t intervene because he knew police SWAT team members wouldn’t know him from the shooter.

In an interview with MSNBC, vet John Parker said he knows lots of students who conceal carry at the school because, despite a school policy that discourages weapons on campus, Oregon state law does allow it.

...Parker explained that his military training provided him with the skills to “go into danger,” but said he felt lucky he and others didn’t try to get involved going after Mercer.

“Luckily we made the choice not to get involved,” he explained. “We were quite a distance away from the building where this was happening. And we could have opened ourselves up to be potential targets ourselves, and not knowing where SWAT was, their response time, they wouldn’t know who we were. And if we had our guns ready to shoot, they could think that we were bad guys.”

The guy wasn't even in the same building. Of course he did the right by not intervening.

Bob N · Oct 3, 2015

pbrauer said:
His reason was for his safety, not from the shooter, but from SWAT teams who might mistake him for the shooter. Kinda shoots down the theory the more guns the better argument.

Vet with concealed weapon explains why he didn't shoot in Umpqua

A veteran who says he was carrying a concealed weapon on the UCC campus Thursday when 26-year-old Christopher Harper Mercer went on a murderous rampage, says he didn’t intervene because he knew police SWAT team members wouldn’t know him from the shooter.

In an interview with MSNBC, vet John Parker said he knows lots of students who conceal carry at the school because, despite a school policy that discourages weapons on campus, Oregon state law does allow it.

...Parker explained that his military training provided him with the skills to “go into danger,” but said he felt lucky he and others didn’t try to get involved going after Mercer.

“Luckily we made the choice not to get involved,” he explained. “We were quite a distance away from the building where this was happening. And we could have opened ourselves up to be potential targets ourselves, and not knowing where SWAT was, their response time, they wouldn’t know who we were. And if we had our guns ready to shoot, they could think that we were bad guys.”

You're correct. I never read articles in the papers or see in the news where a concealed carry saves the day.

You would think that you would see stories like that, huh. :shrug:

pbrauer · Oct 3, 2015

faithful_servant said:
Well that's a stupid argument. Had he stopped the shooter, the SWAT teams would have had no reason to be shooting anyone. Plus, if he was concerned about being shot, then all he had to was follow the instructions of the officers and when instructed to put his weapon on the ground, simply followed those instructions. So basically the guy is dumb and dumb is a pathetic excuse for doing the right thing.

You are calling a member of our armed services dumb? Shame on you. You don't know exactly what happened there yet you're giving advice as to what he should have done.

ecofarm · Oct 3, 2015

Goshin said:
Now if SWAT or uniformed officers are already present, that's different.

Even then, they'll yell 'drop it' (especially because the suspect is not firing). The person will then know authorities have control of the area and can safely drop the weapon.

It's horrible nonsense that some believe being able to defend ourselves is more risk than reward.

countryboy · Oct 3, 2015

Bob N said:
You're correct. I never read articles in the papers or see in the news where a concealed carry saves the day.

You would think that you would see stories like that, huh. :shrug:

You ever heard of YouTube? You can watch videos of armed citizens saving the day for hours. Of course the mostly liberal media isn't going to highlight this. Duh.

ecofarm · Oct 3, 2015

pbrauer said:
You are calling a member of our armed services dumb? Shame on you.

There are dumb people in every group. Do you honestly find all members of any group beyond such an assessment?

You're Poein', right?

BmanMcfly · Oct 3, 2015

foadi said:
Yeah, calling attention to yourself when trying to take out a raving lunatic shooting anything that moves sounds like a great plan.

Well, a) you have to show the people runnin past you that you are not another shooter, this might lead some to run back towards danger
B) anyone that knows where the shooter is will guide you in the right direction
C) mass shooters will typically kill themselves when confronted

Look, if you are going to be afraid and run (not necessarily a bad thing in a life or death situation), that's one thing... If you are running in to stop the crime in action, it's important that you distinguish yourself to those who are running away.

BmanMcfly · Oct 3, 2015

Bob N said:
You're correct. I never read articles in the papers or see in the news where a concealed carry saves the day.

You would think that you would see stories like that, huh. :shrug:

No, those stories are never discussed... Except, at most in the local news where it occurred... And then it would only be In a case where the news would report the story regardless.

pbrauer · Oct 3, 2015

ecofarm said:
There are dumb people in every group. Do you honestly find all members of any group beyond such an assessment?

You're Poein', right?

Of course not, however I think calling him dumb without knowing more is silly,

ecofarm · Oct 3, 2015

pbrauer said:
Of course not, however I think calling him dumb without knowing more is silly,

Fine, but there was no reason to qualify your statement on the subject being in the military. So now that portion of your post is meaningless nonsense. Why did you present meaningless nonsense?

Citizen.Seven · Oct 3, 2015

pbrauer said:
His reason was for his safety, not from the shooter, but from SWAT teams who might mistake him for the shooter. Kinda shoots down the theory the more guns the better argument.

Vet with concealed weapon explains why he didn't shoot in Umpqua

A veteran who says he was carrying a concealed weapon on the UCC campus Thursday when 26-year-old Christopher Harper Mercer went on a murderous rampage, says he didn’t intervene because he knew police SWAT team members wouldn’t know him from the shooter.

In an interview with MSNBC, vet John Parker said he knows lots of students who conceal carry at the school because, despite a school policy that discourages weapons on campus, Oregon state law does allow it.

...Parker explained that his military training provided him with the skills to “go into danger,” but said he felt lucky he and others didn’t try to get involved going after Mercer.

“Luckily we made the choice not to get involved,” he explained. “We were quite a distance away from the building where this was happening. And we could have opened ourselves up to be potential targets ourselves, and not knowing where SWAT was, their response time, they wouldn’t know who we were. And if we had our guns ready to shoot, they could think that we were bad guys.”

If you watch the video, he says that he did want to intervene, despite the distance (different building, 200 yards away), but was stopped by school officials. The Raw story which this blog c/p mischaracterizes his words, He admitted in retrospect that it may have been for the best due to SWAT possibly mistaking him and others for the active shooter, but that was not the reason he didn't intervene.

Note also that he is able to quote exact laws that allowed him to cc despite the proclamation of the president of Umpqua and the policy in the student handbook. This tells me he is a gun rights advocate, and not just a person who happens to have a CCW license. So, legally and technically not a GFZ, but the administration did their best to portray it as one, and only people like Parker knew it was nonsense and was willing to risk getting hassled or worse in exerting their rights.

In fact The Complications of Oregon's Guns-On-Campus Laws. So, if this analysis is correct, it wasn't illegal to CC at Umpqua, but you could get kicked out for it since it was against school policy. Since the whole point of going to school is to actually go to school, not many would risk it. That is a very hostile environment for gun rights, and it may possibly have exacerbated the recent tragedy.

I have to wonder if any of the victims had a CCW license but thought they weren't allowed to carry. I don't know, but it's an interesting question.

Rentoc · Oct 3, 2015

So contrary to the OP, the armed civilian (an Armed Forces Vet), was discouraged by campus authorities from going into the fire zone. Not that he chose not to go. Interesting.

Cephus · Oct 3, 2015

I think that's really stupid. Had he killed the shooter, it would have been long before SWAT ever showed up in the first place. The whole situation could have been defused before anything really went wrong. By the time the police showed up, there would have been no situation anymore.

BmanMcfly · Oct 3, 2015

Rentoc said:
So contrary to the OP, the armed civilian (an Armed Forces Vet), was discouraged by campus authorities from going into the fire zone. Not that he chose not to go. Interesting.

That completely changes the story... Might not have changed the outcome, but if it did, it would have been well before the swat was ready to go.

And my points remain, that if you are walking to confront a shooter, you want it to be clear to those escaping that you are not another shooter. Or there's a risk of people running back into danger inadvertently.

Citizen.Seven · Oct 3, 2015

Rentoc said:
So contrary to the OP, the armed civilian (an Armed Forces Vet), was discouraged by campus authorities from going into the fire zone. Not that he chose not to go. Interesting.

Their reasoning had some validity; he was in a different building 200 yards away, so it would have taken him a few minutes to get to the shooter, exercising necessary precaution. There could have been an unfortunate convergence with police response. However, that was not his first thought, or his plan of action. He was told by school officials to stand down.

It would have been very heroic, but certainly not expected. The point of a CCW is not to go seeking out trouble when you are safe; that's what LEOs get paid to do. The point is that if trouble finds you, you can protect yourself. If he had been in the classroom, this story would have had a very different ending.

Riveroaks · Oct 3, 2015

pbrauer said:
His reason was for his safety, not from the shooter, but from SWAT teams who might mistake him for the shooter. Kinda shoots down the theory the more guns the better argument.

Vet with concealed weapon explains why he didn't shoot in Umpqua

A veteran who says he was carrying a concealed weapon on the UCC campus Thursday when 26-year-old Christopher Harper Mercer went on a murderous rampage, says he didn’t intervene because he knew police SWAT team members wouldn’t know him from the shooter.

In an interview with MSNBC, vet John Parker said he knows lots of students who conceal carry at the school because, despite a school policy that discourages weapons on campus, Oregon state law does allow it.

...Parker explained that his military training provided him with the skills to “go into danger,” but said he felt lucky he and others didn’t try to get involved going after Mercer.

“Luckily we made the choice not to get involved,” he explained. “We were quite a distance away from the building where this was happening. And we could have opened ourselves up to be potential targets ourselves, and not knowing where SWAT was, their response time, they wouldn’t know who we were. And if we had our guns ready to shoot, they could think that we were bad guys.”

There are lots more considerations here.

Rifle vs pistol.

Body armor vs no body armor.

Plus a CCW does not give you permission to go vigilante.

And the police are always a threat to anyone armed, because the police don't stop and ask questions.

Riveroaks · Oct 3, 2015

Citizen.Seven said:
Their reasoning had some validity; he was in a different building 200 yards away, so it would have taken him a few minutes to get to the shooter, exercising necessary precaution. There could have been an unfortunate convergence with police response. However, that was not his first thought, or his plan of action. He was told by school officials to stand down.

It would have been very heroic, but certainly not expected. The point of a CCW is not to go seeking out trouble when you are safe; that's what LEOs get paid to do. The point is that if trouble finds you, you can protect yourself. If he had been in the classroom, this story would have had a very different ending.

A CCW permit is not a license to go vigilante.

Riveroaks · Oct 3, 2015

BmanMcfly said:
That completely changes the story... Might not have changed the outcome, but if it did, it would have been well before the swat was ready to go.

And my points remain, that if you are walking to confront a shooter, you want it to be clear to those escaping that you are not another shooter. Or there's a risk of people running back into danger inadvertently.

"Walking to confront a shooter" is NOT what a CCW permit is for.

Why Student with a concealed weapon didn't confront the Umpqua shooter.

pbrauer

faithful_servant

Unitedwestand13

Goshin

Burned Out Ex-Mod

BmanMcfly

foadi

Well-known member

countryboy

BobbyO

Active member

Bob N

Weekend Political Pundit

pbrauer

ecofarm

global liberation

countryboy

ecofarm

global liberation

BmanMcfly

BmanMcfly

pbrauer

ecofarm

global liberation

Citizen.Seven

Rentoc

Well-known member

Cephus

BmanMcfly

Citizen.Seven

Riveroaks

Riveroaks

Riveroaks