ACTIVE SHOOTER INCIDENTS

by Jack

One of the phenomena’s of this age is the rise of the active shooter situation.

We now see classes popping up on how to deal with this in many communities, often taught by law enforcement.

It’s just my opinion, but because of politics the cop taught  classes tend to be overly cautious re when to pull the trigger.  Why?  Because cops, unlike NRA instructors, are laser focused on being harassed after any shooting, good or bad.  They worry too much about what will happen afterwards, such as, protests, defamation of character, lawsuits, trial, loss of employment, etc.   But, now I am getting a little off point.  Sorry.

Ready for some good news?  Another active shooter situation happened in Oklahoma City, where the bad guy was hosing down people with a pistol.  Being it was Oklahoma city and not Berkeley, several armed citizens retrieved their weapons from their pick up trucks and immediately advanced towards the gunman.   They tried to get him to drop his weapon, but he refused.  Bad choice.  A brief firefight took place and the gunman was shot dead. Then the cops arrived.   However, it could have been 2 or 3 citizens shot dead, then the cops arrived had it not been for the courageous armed citizens or if it had taken place in Berkeley.

The FBI examined 160 such shootings between 2000 and 2013 and found that most of the violence ended when the assailant stopped shooting, committed suicide or fled.  But, those actions could have resulted from armed citizens and in my book that’s just as good as plugging him.

What we do know for sure, is that unarmed citizens successfully restrained shooters in at least 21 of those incidents, and so says the FBI.  Two attacks stopped when off-duty officers shot and killed the attackers. Five ended in much the way the attack above did — when armed civilians exchanged fire with the shooters.

In two prominent recent examples, civilians have, as in Oklahoma City, successfully intervened in mass shootings. In November, Stephen Willeford, a former NRA instructor, shot a gunman who killed more than two dozen people inside a Sutherland Springs, Tex., church, hitting the attacker twice. The shooter fled and later shot himself in the head while under chase.

More good news.  In June, a pastor and volunteer firefighter who had been through active-shooter training killed a carjacker who opened fire inside a Walmart store in Tumwater, Wash.

Meanwhile back in CA the Demoncrats are doing everything possible with their virtual dictatorial powers to limit your gun rights.  They limit your gun ownership, they drive gun brokers out of business or out state and they prevent low cost gun importers out of the state too.  What does that say about CA’s demoncrat leadership?   Our high taxes, high regulations, wasteful spending and legislative corruption should be your first clue.

This entry was posted in Civil Rights, Gun rights and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to ACTIVE SHOOTER INCIDENTS

  1. Pie Guevara says:

    Damn good post.

  2. Pie Guevara says:

    Off Topic

    These pages have, in the past, dealt with what Islam is. From the apologists to the supposed “xenophobes.” Try this on for size from my Twitter friend James Delingpole and get a clue as to what Islam migration from their horrid Islamic State means in the real world. I mean REAL world, not the fantasy world of the mindless left that fears Judaism and Christianity and sucks up to Islam.

    “It began, you may remember, as a result of the Trojan Horse scandal when it emerged that a number of state schools in Birmingham had been hijacked by Islamists promoting an extremist agenda, with non-Muslim teachers marginalised, boys and girls segregated, teenage males taught that rape is legal within marriage, Islamic terrorists glorified and non-Muslims described as kuffar.”

    “https://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/06/29/better-cocker-spaniel-prime-minister-theresa-ruddy-may/

    The rest is a damn good read too.

  3. RHT447 says:

    “Meanwhile back in CA the Demoncrats are doing everything possible with their virtual dictatorial powers to limit your gun rights.”

    True. They ain’t the only ones—

    “Follow-up on my last Quip:

    I suggested declining to answer questions about gun-ownership, political leanings, etc, when they come up in
    discussions on personal health matters with your doctor.

    Many Doctors who are DTI students, responded:

    “Medicare now requires the question about gun-ownership be asked. When it is not asked, reimbursement to the doctor is jeopardized. Answers go on a form, and forms are submitted.

    The form has only two boxes, ‘Yes,’ and ‘No.’

    When you answer anything other than ‘No,’ the doctor will check the ‘Yes’ box. So, when you decline to answer, no matter how politely, the ‘Yes’ box gets a check-mark in it!

    Imagine, for example, that you are in Nazi Germany in 1936, and your doctor asks (as he is required to do),

    ‘Do you have Jewish relatives?’

    When you answer, “That’s irrelevant and none of your business,” the doctor checks the ‘Yes’ box, and you suddenly have an unanticipated train-ride in your immediate future!”

    With the foregoing in mind, here are some suggested responses, all far briefer than the one I advised:

    1) “Not for discussion here, Doctor.”

    2) “Doctor, unless you can explain what that has to do with my medical diagnosis and treatment, let’s not waste
    our time discussing it.”

    3) “No” (without further comment)

    I like to maintain personal honesty, but I have to admit option 3 is probably best. Your best interests are served when the doctor immediately puts a check-mark in the “No” box!

    Our System does not reward truthfulness and honesty. Out System rewards, indeed requires, lying.

    Non-responsive answers will be translated as “Yes,” as noted above.

    In addition, your refusal to answer straightforwardly will be noted, and likely interpreted further as a sign of incipient mental unsoundness.

    Remember the way Stalin declared even the slightest political opposition to be prima-facie evidence of “insanity?” This malignant ideology is always just under the surface!

    HRC, during her recent presidential campaign, said essentially the same thing!

    The apple never falls far from the tree!

    /John”

    From here—

    http://defense-training.com/2018/the-no-box/

  4. Harold says:

    RHT447. I have to agree that if I owned a gun and was asked that question, without your explanation of “yes verse no”, I would have requested a explanation of why it pertained to the medical visit. Just as I avoid including a Social Security number on forms, in todays world, it is not safe giving that information out, just because someone asks.

    In Calif, lawmakers (read liberal idiots) have, as you pointed out many times prior, gone to extremes with information about gun ownership, and a couple of times already had that information hacked/exposed to the dark web as a result of Calif’s own negligence in protect private information.

    Lets add another recent anti gun law recently broken by some (Calif own broken/failed registration system), as of July 1st of this year Calif has created many more criminals by not having a effective registration system in place, this now law now requires gun owners to re-register many already registered guns as required by their new law,(which by the way includes our enlisted over seas fighting for our freedom Their being out of the country is not a reasonable explanation, this new law doesn’t provide any deferred time period for them)

    So a “NO” answer might be just be a mute point, they create new ways daily it seems to take away your rights and your guns and make you a criminal.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *