When mass killers meet armed resistance.

[The_Falcon]

Sorry for the delayed response, my message didn't go through because of my comp. I also posted this on the Radio Chatter post about VT.

I was stating that the BPD and the VT PD could have issued much more aggressive orders to their subordinates. Such as very aggressive patrols with assault rifles on the whole campus as soon as the forces responded on site. They ONLY established a perimeter and no go zone on one building in the whole area as a response to Cho's initial decoy killings.

I know they had the means, but, my biggest concern is..why didn't they get LEO's to secure the WHOLE campus, including dorms. That's what they did in Montreal, and that ******* was cornered because of the procedures taken.

Although, this tactic may not have worked as there were 25,000 students, and the gunman could have gone on a rampage whether there was police presence or not.

Hired guns (Group 4) that would be in uniforms would also be inneffectual as they are too easy of a target and students/killers would be aware of their presence. Group 4 undercover would also be rooted out by the killer.

As for trained guns on the campus, you'd need well trained (Gunsite, Sigarms academy, IPSC) trustworthy students that are enthusiastic with the thought of being a guard with a noble cause. The only thing about this like stated previously is that, it wouldn't happen because of bureaucracy's within our two countries system.
For now, we need in the USA and Canada, kids that carry illegally who are well versed.

I for one will not feel secure with my life in somebody's hands...unless they are my trained buddy's hands of course.

And was stated previously here, the Virginia Tech Campus was quite large, (literally the size of a small town), much larger then the school in Montreal.  Securing the WHOLE campus would have been quite impossible. Consider also, as stated previously, intially the police did not know the first murders were anything other than a "normal" murder.  Police are not in the habit of shutting town whole towns (which essentially this campus was), for what they consider isolated incidents.

 

[nULL]

What a nightmare scenario that would be; the police respond to an emergency such as VT, only to find a large group of civilians equally as well armed, just as confused as to what the situation is, and all looking to be the hero; to me, it sounds like an effective impediment to the legal authorities to do their jobs properly and safely. Some of you guys need to wipe the romanticized versions of this sort of scenario out of your minds; having a gun doesn't make you mature enough not to use it, nor equip you with the training to react effectively to that sort of calamitous event.

Edited to correct typo.

 

[muskrat89]

Some of your guys need to wipe the romanticized versions of this sort of scenario out of your minds

Is that like the romanticized vision of the police arriving "just in the nick of time" to save everybody? Yeah - that worked well, didn't it?

That's not to slam the LE Agencies - that is just pointing out that they can't be everywhere at once, and as a citizen, I should have the opportunity (right) to defend myself with the same amount of force that the bad guy wields.

 

[nULL]

Sure, as long as you accept the right of everyone else to the same - perhaps people who aren't as disciplined nor as trained in CQB or weapons handling as you are. Wait, was that your daughter the well-meaning gentleman just shot because he was nervous and, well, he'd bought it for his wife actually, he hadn't used the damn thing in months and...

...or the police officer who shows up and shoots the first college kid who, not thinking in his terrorized and stressed mental state, accidently points his gun at him...
...or the killer who uses the delays to slaughter more innocent people...
...or the victims who lie dying while police try and secure the area, try and determine the number of hostile gunmen...

We could debate this for days, your nightmare scenario and mine; the common truth, neither is ideal.

 

[muskrat89]

The reality is (here in the US), people wanting a Concealed Carry permit have to undergo some pretty extensive training which includes range time, legal use of deadly force, shoot/don't shoot scenarios, etc. Generally, people don't just go to Cabela's and buy a .44 magnum to lug around.

 

[a_majoor]

JAMES Q. WILSON: "Gun control isn't the answer." Writing in the Los Angeles Times, Wilson observes:

    AS FOR THE European disdain for our criminal culture, many of those countries should not spend too much time congratulating themselves. In 2000, the rate at which people were robbed or assaulted was higher in England, Scotland, Finland, Poland, Denmark and Sweden than it was in the United States. The assault rate in England was twice that in the United States. In the decade since England banned all private possession of handguns, the BBC reported that the number of gun crimes has gone up sharply.

    Some of the worst examples of mass gun violence have also occurred in Europe. In recent years, 17 students and teachers were killed by a shooter in one incident at a German public school; 14 legislators were shot to death in Switzerland, and eight city council members were shot to death near Paris.

    The main lesson that should emerge from the Virginia Tech killings is that we need to work harder to identify and cope with dangerously unstable personalities.

    It is a problem for Europeans as well as Americans, one for which there are no easy solutions — such as passing more gun control laws.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-wilson20apr20,0,4514008.story?coll=la-opinion-center

 

[Brad Sallows]

>What a nightmare scenario that would be; the police respond to an emergency such as VT, only to find a large group of civilians equally as well armed, just as confused as to what the situation is, and all looking to be the hero

Given the average response times one reads about - five minutes at best, usually more - an exchange of gunfire would be resolved by the time the police show up.  Few people carry enough ammo for a five-minute long "mad minute".  Either the shooter would be dead, or at least we can say the respondents died trying rather than pleading for their lives.

>having a gun doesn't make you mature enough not to use it, nor equip you with the training to react effectively to that sort of calamitous event.

Strangely, the media haven't been reporting all those gunfights that must take place after the good old boys who carry in various US states get all liquored up in bars and fights break out.  Perhaps your imagined fear is all in your imagination.

The reason there isn't a rash of gunfights and murders by people authorized to carry firearms is simple: most people have to overcome substantial inhibitions in order to fire on another person at close range.  They haven't all been through special training to dehumanize them and remove their inhibitions.  In any event, I suppose that just unloading a couple of clips over the head of a shooter would put him off his game and tempt him to at least flee even if he doesn't drop his weapons and sh!t himself.  At the least it might spoil his aim.

>We could debate this for days, your nightmare scenario and mine; the common truth, neither is ideal.

But we're not debating; we're speculating.  Fortunately, we have real evidence to consider: the experiment is already under way in the US, and none of the alarmist predictions have come to pass.  But don't let yourself be convinced by the way the real world is working out.

 

[vonGarvin]

    The main lesson that should emerge from the Virginia Tech killings is that we need to work harder to identify and cope with dangerously unstable personalities.

[sarcasm] Of course, by "personalities" you mean guns, right?  Because guns kill people, people don't kill people [/sarcasm]


Very good point. 

I also note that the "warning signs" given by Kim Suk Oh (or whatever the frig his name was) are probably currently display by thousands of Americans, Canadians, Europeans, etc and so forth.  So, lock them all up?  LOL

Sorry, it was a tragedy.  Too bad not ONE of those students was similarly armed.  I mean, of all the registered gun owners in the US, how many committed mass-media-covered killings last week?  Two. 

Oh, I suppose Jack Layton et al are calling for the withdrawal of students from VT for taking part in "Bushite" education  :

 

[nULL]

Ok, an event that comes to mind is the North Hollywood bank-robbery shootout, an event where none of the hostages offered resistance, and as a result, none were killed. I wonder how such a scenario would have played out had they done something other than "plead for their lives."

Or...is your solution only good for mass murderers, and not other types of desperate criminal...? What about a guy who robs a convenience store with a weapon, not intending to murder anyone, when he is suddenly confronted by an armed customer? Wouldn't you agree that the situation has become more deadly for everyone involved?

Strangely, the media haven't been reporting all those gunfights that must take place after the good old boys who carry in various US states get all liquored up in bars and fights break out.  Perhaps your imagined fear is all in your imagination.

The reason there isn't a rash of gunfights and murders by people authorized to carry firearms is simple: most people have to overcome substantial inhibitions in order to fire on another person at close range.  They haven't all been through special training to dehumanize them and remove their inhibitions.  In any event, I suppose that just unloading a couple of clips over the head of a shooter would put him off his game and tempt him to at least flee even if he doesn't drop his weapons and sh!t himself.  At the least it might spoil his aim.

I'm not sure what your point is; one could argue that the reason the media doesn't report every gun-related homicide are because there are too many. As to the idea of unloading a magazine over the head of a shooter - right. A crowded university campus, people running in terror in every direction, and you are going to start firing rounds "in the general direction of a shooter" at the very least?

It's ideas like that that make me glad that the "good guys" - yes, when they show up - at least have the training to deal with these sorts of situations.

But we're not debating; we're speculating.  Fortunately, we have real evidence to consider: the experiment is already under way in the US, and none of the alarmist predictions have come to pass.  But don't let yourself be convinced by the way the real world is working out.

What alarmist predictions are these? it's ironic that you should point out "The Real World" - what kind of movie are you living in?

 

[vonGarvin]

Whoa, slow down.  Firing for the sake of firing at a mass murderer in a crowded classroom is NOT what is advocated.  What IS advocated is the simple confrontation of a mass murderer by an armed citizen.  Simply rolling over and "non-resistance" is what gets people killed.

I don't know about you, but currently the colour in my sky is blue.

 

[Kirkhill]

Maybe the problem is "excessive" fear of guns.  Perhaps if the movies and video games portrayed the effect of weapons as described by some of you guys coming back from Afghanistan people wouldn't be expecting to die as soon as they hear a gun shot. 

What was it you were talking about?  Terrs taking multiple 9mm and 5.56mm hits and still coming? Similar tales from WW1 and 2 with .303 and 7.92mm.

The issue that gets me on these incidents is how many people just freeze up and wait to be executed rather than taking a chance at acting.  Things may need to be presented a little more starkly as on that Pennsylvania Flight on 9/11: Do nothing and be guaranteed of dying or act and maybe die.  Your chances of survival seem to increase if you act, armed or not.  Even getting hit doesn't guarantee death.

Crikey - that's a sanctimonious, and morbid, post.

 

[TCBF]

What a nightmare scenario that would be; the police respond to an emergency such as VT, only to find a large group of civilians equally as well armed, just as confused as to what the situation is, and all looking to be the hero; to me, it sounds like an effective impediment to the legal authorities to do their jobs properly and safely. Some of you guys need to wipe the romanticized versions of this sort of scenario out of your minds; having a gun doesn't make you mature enough not to use it, nor equip you with the training to react effectively to that sort of calamitous event.

Edited to correct typo.

- You may recall the Chales Whitman shootings:

"By now word of what was happening had spread, and police began returning fire toward the Tower, trying to pick off Charlie as he rose up over the parapet to take aim.  Citizens went home and got their own guns, and hundreds of shots chipped away at the Tower in the next hour. "

"As more victims fell, police officers made their various ways to the Tower.  Austin Police Officers Jerry Day, Houston McCoy, and Ramiro Martinez, Department of Public Safety Officer W.A. Cowan, civilian Allen Crum and others converged on the 27th floor."

-http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/mass/whitman/tower_6.html

 

[daftandbarmy]

A la Britain?

An article with the British point of view. Basically, they think that the US is crazy not to ban all handguns, like the UK did after the Dunblane massacre. They've got a  point, but as we all know that's likely a pipe dream.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-magazine/features/29093/dusty-bibles-dirty-thoughts.thtml

 

[Blackadder1916]

  What IS advocated is the simple confrontation of a mass murderer by an armed citizen.  Simply rolling over and "non-resistance" is what gets people killed.

A little simplistic?  Many factors are involved and not all incidents can end in a satisfactory manner simply by force of arms.  An example here in Alberta is Mayerthorpe.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>Or...is your solution only good for mass murderers, and not other types of desperate criminal...?

You're trying very hard to overcomplicate this.  It's all very well to sit tight while the bad guys are just brandishing weapons and uttering threats.  My point is that once rounds start to fly, it's fair to try to minimize the body count.  To do that, one has to be prepared with the means.

>A crowded university campus, people running in terror in every direction, and you are going to start firing rounds "in the general direction of a shooter" at the very least?

You misunderstand.  I observe that the reason we don't see much gunplay from people who haven't already made up their minds to kill someone is because of our cultured inhibition against killing.  That, plus any number of stress factors, might throw off the aim of people who elect to shoot back.  Suppressing fire is still better than nothing.

>It's ideas like that that make me glad that the "good guys" - yes, when they show up - at least have the training to deal with these sorts of situations.

Some people are sheep by nature, and some are not.

>What alarmist predictions are these? it's ironic that you should point out "The Real World" - what kind of movie are you living in?

Pardon me for mistaking you for someone who might have even a casual acquaintance with developments in various US states over the past few years, such as the changes to Florida self-defence laws.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>Many factors are involved and not all incidents can end in a satisfactory manner simply by force of arms.

That's true, but irrelevant.  Perfection is not a requirement.  The idea is to reduce some of the body count, not all of it.  Only a very foolish person would expect the latter, or raise incompleteness as an objection to doing anything at all.

 

[NL_engineer]

Ok, an event that comes to mind is the North Hollywood bank-robbery shootout, an event where none of the hostages offered resistance, and as a result, none were killed. I wonder how such a scenario would have played out had they done something other than "plead for their lives."

Or...is your solution only good for mass murderers, and not other types of desperate criminal...? What about a guy who robs a convenience store with a weapon, not intending to murder anyone, when he is suddenly confronted by an armed customer? Wouldn't you agree that the situation has become more deadly for everyone involved?

1. The robbers in North Hollywood were equipped with AK's, a s&*^ load of ammo, and body armor.  Even if there were armed costumers in the bank, they could see that confronting them would be their death.  Look at the trouble the police had with these guys (having to go to a local gun shop to mack the fire power, etc.).

2. It happens, there are videos of costumers confronting (and sometimes shooting) the criminal; I've seen a number of similar videos  worlds wildest police videos, of off duty cops, or Jo-Blow civy  confronting the robber.

Back on topic, in your examples the intent is different.  In VT the assailant went in with the intent to kill, in your examples, the criminal's intent is to rob the store/bank/etc. we might as well compair apples to oranges.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

And how many times has a North Hollywood bank scenario happen????

This is the minority of events and yes very few CCW holders would take on two heavily armed & armoured bank robbers for insured money.

Most CCW holders deal with small store hold ups, assaults and break in's

 

[observor 69]

[sarcasm] Of course, by "personalities" you mean guns, right?  Because guns kill people, people don't kill people [/sarcasm]


Very good point. 

I also note that the "warning signs" given by Kim Suk Oh (or whatever the frig his name was) are probably currently display by thousands of Americans, Canadians, Europeans, etc and so forth.  So, lock them all up?  LOL

Sorry, it was a tragedy.  Too bad not ONE of those students was similarly armed.  I mean, of all the registered gun owners in the US, how many committed mass-media-covered killings last week?  Two. 

Oh, I suppose Jack Layton et al are calling for the withdrawal of students from VT for taking part in "Bushite" education   :

Can you envision the entire student body of U of Western Ontario going around packing concealed weapons ?
How would the Emergency Response Team tell the good guys from the bad guys?

Scary

 

[vonGarvin]

Can you envision the entire student body of U of Western Ontario going around packing concealed weapons ?
How would the Emergency Response Team tell the good guys from the bad guys?
Scary

True, scary, but I imagine that you envision a sort of VTech-ish situation.  OK, so Kim Jung Il goes berserk on campus, say at the UC on the hill.  He runs into a room, screaming that the Film Actors Guild and Alec Baldwin let him down.  He pulls out his gun and begins to fire.  Within moments, he is gunned down.  The ERT arrives to find first aid being applied to Kim's victims and plenty of students ready to give statements.

Yes, very scary indeed.


(PS: The bad guys are all dead and/or dying from gunshot wounds.  The good guys are standing around, complying to the ERT orders, perhaps with smoking guns lying on the ground next to them)