• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Active Shooter Vs. Armed Citizens Scenario

Jetboogieman said:
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
Click to expand...

More often than not an armed mass shooter is going to have long guns. Most regular people in a mall are going to carry a pistol. So one way of identifying an armed shooter is the weapon that they are using.

However the most accurate way of determining who the active shooter is is by seeing who is randomly shooting people. That right there is the biggest telltale out there.

Most regular citizens that carry regularly are not stupid people and will often assess a situation before shooting if they must.
 
independentusa said:
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.
Click to expand...

At over 25 meters, not much. At 10-25 meters, about even, and at closer than 10 meters the edge goes to the handgun.

Oh, and to try to stem the inevitable nit-picking, those are rough estimates for non expert marksmen assuming .223 for the AR and no greater than .40 for the handgun and full size.

Yes I know plenty of people can be accurate at over 25m with a pistol or revolver, but not near as easily as with a long gun
 
Last edited:
markjs said:
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.
Click to expand...

First and foremost the 2nd is about the realization of the natural right to self defense. It's not really about objects. The founders wrote so as to transcend time, intentionally.
 
Kal'Stang said:
More often than not an armed mass shooter is going to have long guns. Most regular people in a mall are going to carry a pistol. So one way of identifying an armed shooter is the weapon that they are using.

However the most accurate way of determining who the active shooter is is by seeing who is randomly shooting people. That right there is the biggest telltale out there.

Most regular citizens that carry regularly are not stupid people and will often assess a situation before shooting if they must.
Click to expand...

Innocent people statistically are 6 times more likely to be shot and killed by police than armed citizens, though there are far more guns out there carried by non-police. There are many factors in this of course, but one is that non-police are not in the mind frame to shoot anyone and tend not to do so unless very clearly necessary.
 
VanceMack said:
.....[just using this to send you a notification]
Click to expand...

I got a notification that you replied to my inquiry, but I don't see a post from you other than the one having the content about which I inquired. Did you delete your reply?
 
Xelor said:
[*]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.
[/LIST]
Click to expand...

Dave and Busters is a video arcade for adults. I know, that sounds absurd, I must be pulling your leg. But it's real.
 
joko104 said:
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.
Click to expand...

And how often has that happened that an armed civilian has killed the shooter in these mass killings. In fact more policemen have been killed by the shooter than shooters by policemen, as most shooters in large part killed themselves.
 
pinqy said:
At over 25 meters, not much. At 10-25 meters, about even, and at closer than 10 meters the edge goes to the handgun.

Oh, and to try to stem the inevitable nit-picking, those are rough estimates for non expert marksmen assuming .223 for the AR and no greater than .40 for the handgun and full size.

Yes I know plenty of people can be accurate at over 25m with a pistol or revolver, but not near as easily as with a long gun
Click to expand...

Actually without training for a situation, a civilian with a handgun and the adrenaline pumping through their veins, even expecting a hit with a hand gun at 10 meters is questionable. Especially if you are trying to move and shoot at the same time to keep yourself safe.
 
Jetboogieman said:
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
Click to expand...

Any theoretical scenario can be created that will be a cluster****. Just like any theorectical scenario can be created that can turn out to be a miracle.

Bottomline: it could go either way and I'll take my chances with armed civilians vs. unarmed victims.
 
independentusa said:
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.
Click to expand...

In those cases, they're killed by a shooter who has the advantage of surprise, cover and concealment.

The officer killed at the Thousand Oaks bar room shooting was killed with a handgun. He wasn't outgunned by the assailant.
 
OP contains several poor assumptions:

1) That armed citizens are obligated to protect others with their firearms (or any other way). We are not.

2) That any or most armed citizens WOULD risk their own lives to engage and stop an active shooter. Case in point, in most circumstances, I would not, I would retreat if I can. Call 911, etc

3) That armed citizens would shoot if they don’t have a clear shot and hit bystanders. I'd love to see some links to citizens doing so in active shooter situations…has it happened? OTOH, for example we know that there were at least 2 armed citizens in the crowd at the Gabby Giffords shooting and neither shot. I saw one interviewed and he said that he didn’t have a safe shot in the crowd. So presumptions about citizen's judgement and skill would seem unfounded at this point.

4) That it would be better to be unarmed and unprotected so you don’t get shot by cops, rather than armed with a chance of protecting yourself against the shooter or other crimes. :roll:
 
independentusa said:
Actually without training for a situation, a civilian with a handgun and the adrenaline pumping through their veins, even expecting a hit with a hand gun at 10 meters is questionable. Especially if you are trying to move and shoot at the same time to keep yourself safe.
Click to expand...
I completely agree. But the same holds true for a rifle. My point was that at 10-25 meters, neither has any advantage over the other, all other things being equal.
 
well i carry

in your mall scenario i would go to ground and try to exit the situation. no hero here.

now i would certainly feel a lot better being armed than just being another naked, helpless victim.

as soon as you reveal your weapon you become a target for the police and other armed citizens along with the shooter.

now should i be confronted by the shooter or given an opportunity to put an end to it i would not hesitate to take the shot and i usually hit what i am shooting at. practice makes perfect

arturbo40_zpshbfijds6.jpg
 
Last edited:
independentusa said:
Actually without training for a situation, a civilian with a handgun and the adrenaline pumping through their veins, even expecting a hit with a hand gun at 10 meters is questionable. Especially if you are trying to move and shoot at the same time to keep yourself safe.
Click to expand...

Move and.shoot... Hollywood school of thinking.

Seek cover and concealment. Fire from a stable position with support for the firing hand. It will improve your odds markedly.
 
Mycroft said:
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.
Click to expand...
The problem to that though is that police response to mass shootings historically has been abysmal. At the Parkland School Shooting, police forces mustered outside til long after the shooting stopped. At Columbine, they didnt go into the school for an hour and a half. Sandy Hook, police didnt enter the school for nearly 15 minutes AFTER the shooter had committed suicide.

Just me...but I'd rather take my chances with armed citizens responding than waiting for the cops.
 
independentusa said:
Actually without training for a situation, a civilian with a handgun and the adrenaline pumping through their veins, even expecting a hit with a hand gun at 10 meters is questionable. Especially if you are trying to move and shoot at the same time to keep yourself safe.
Click to expand...

Are you assuming the handgun carrier doesnt have the training? At least to shoot accurately at relevant (likely) distances?
 
Fledermaus said:
Move and.shoot... Hollywood school of thinking.

Seek cover and concealment. Fire from a stable position with support for the firing hand. It will improve your odds markedly.
Click to expand...

Of course but you have to get to cover first. Besides, moving and shooting is fun, it's now automatic for me, to move off the X.
 
independentusa said:
And how often has that happened that an armed civilian has killed the shooter in these mass killings. In fact more policemen have been killed by the shooter than shooters by policemen, as most shooters in large part killed themselves.
Click to expand...

So then you personally would choose this?

Lursa said:
4) That it would be better to be unarmed and unprotected so you don’t get shot by cops, rather than armed with a chance of protecting yourself against the shooter or other crimes. :roll:
Click to expand...

If what you write is true...why does it matter if people carry? If you dont need it, you dont need it. Why would that matter to other people?

I have had to respond to possible situations twice over at my rural neighbors. I took my firearm...not because I really believed it was needed but because I knew I'd feel like an idiot right before someone shot me *if I did need it.*

Much better to have and not use than to need and not have.

I never understand the perspective of disarming people who carry to protect themselves...it's like our lives matter less than everyone else's/.
 
Jetboogieman said:
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
Click to expand...

Police shoot innocent armed citizens all the time. Two recently who were not the shooter but were armed citizens who were black. Police have split seconds to react to someone they come upon who has a gun or who they think is a threat. They are apt to shoot first or err on the side of caution and shot first and sort the questions out after someone is hurt or dead. No one wants to get themselves into a situation where they can become a target of police.
Possibly this is just another price to be paid for the magnitude of freedoms Americans have. I have no solution except for possibly training of civilians by police in how to react in active shooter situations so as to be not killed by police.
 
independentusa said:
And how often has that happened that an armed civilian has killed the shooter in these mass killings. In fact more policemen have been killed by the shooter than shooters by policemen, as most shooters in large part killed themselves.
Click to expand...

Why does it matter if the the shooter dies if he stops shooting?
 
Myview said:
Police shoot innocent armed citizens all the time. Two recently who were not the shooter but were armed citizens who were black. Police have split seconds to react to someone they come upon who has a gun or who they think is a threat. They are apt to shoot first or err on the side of caution and shot first and sort the questions out after someone is hurt or dead. No one wants to get themselves into a situation where they can become a target of police.
Possibly this is just another price to be paid for the magnitude of freedoms Americans have. I have no solution except for possibly training of civilians by police in how to react in active shooter situations so as to be not killed by police.
Click to expand...

don't be running around brandishing a weapon. keep that thing concealed. when you realize cops are on site either get those hands up or lay down on the ground. if you are far enough away just join the crowd and exit.
 
apdst said:
Any theoretical scenario can be created that will be a cluster****. Just like any theorectical scenario can be created that can turn out to be a miracle.

Bottomline: it could go either way and I'll take my chances with armed civilians vs. unarmed victims.
Click to expand...
Its just a little bit mind numbing that we can SEE the results of what happens when shooters encounter zero resistance, but there are still people that would actually take the position that an armed civilian response might **** things up.
 
independentusa said:
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.
Click to expand...

depends on the environment. IN an elevator or a small room, I will take a handgun over an AR 15 all day long. and if you have cover and concealment, an active shooter with an AR 15 is going to be killed if you have a handgun and can shoot at the same level someone like I can
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom