Skip to main content
Update
Non-financial boards have been closed.

Non-financial boards have been closed but will continue to be accessible in read-only form. If you're disappointed, we understand. Thank you for being an active participant in this community. We have more community features in development that we look forward to sharing soon.

Fool.com | The Motley Fool Community
Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
 
No. of Recommendations: 2
The other passengers in LAX had guns. They could have stopped the shooter.

I just wanted to be the first one to suggest it.

Remember, more guns make everyone safer.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Remember, more guns make everyone safer.

The ones used to neutralize the shooter sure did. I don't think they threatened to pelt him with marshmallows until he stopped shooting...

Repeat after me: The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. LAX is Exhibit A, if you want.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 24
Hi Colovion,

“The ones used to neutralize the shooter sure did. I don't think they threatened to pelt him with marshmallows until he stopped shooting...

Repeat after me: The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. LAX is Exhibit A, if you want.”

And Exhibit B is the School Secretary who, although she did not have marshmallows at the time, improvised and used her words to stop a shooter:

http://www.gadailynews.com/news/171293-michael-brandon-hill-... Michael Brandon Hill: Atlanta school shooter stopped by secretary Antoinette Tuff

By the way if the ,,, only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.” were true, then why did Exhibit A not work at the Navy Yard? or Columbine? before someone other than the shooter died?

A woman and others stopped this shooter:

“Loughner stopped to reload, but dropped the loaded magazine from his pocket to the sidewalk, from where bystander Patricia Maisch grabbed it.[25] Another bystander clubbed the back of the assailant's head with a folding chair, injuring his elbow in the process, representing the 14th injury.[26] Loughner was tackled to the ground by 74-year-old retired United States Army Colonel Bill Badger,[27] who had been shot himself [emphasis added], and was further subdued by Maisch and bystanders Roger Sulzgeber and Joseph Zamudio. Zamudio was a CCW holder and had a weapon on his person, but arrived after the shooting had stopped and did not draw his firearm.[28] Zamudio later stated that he initially mistook the identity of the shooter and had considered drawing his weapon before realizing that individual was not the shooter.[29]”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Tucson_shooting 2011 Tucson shooting

The last sentence in the above quote should give one pause. Fortunately Zamudio had the sense to stop and think before pulling his weapon. Had he not taken that split second others, including him (a bystander mistaken for a second shooter), could have been killed.

There are many ways to stop shooters.

Unfortunately, the possession of guns can lead to tragic incidents when those in possession of the weapon decide to use it to take out their anger over a perceived infringement of their space:

“While his girlfriend was inside the store, Dunn asked the teens to turn down the loud music they were playing, cops said.

Davis said something back and there was a heated exchange, authorities said.

Dunn then pulled a gun and fired at least eight shots, hitting Davis twice, cops told the Sentinel.

Dunn and his girlfriend then left the scene.”

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/man-shoots-teen-lou... Florida man shoots and kills 17-year-old teen after argument over loud music at gas station

What I find striking about this account is the shooter showed no concern he had taken the life of another - over what he perceived to be load music and the music was not going to bother him after his girlfriend returned and they left!

There are many ways to stop shooters.

Until we as a nation decide to address the issue of allowing individuals with weapons which encourage them to take out their emotions with tragic consequences, we will continue to see a wild west mentality with victims and their families suffering the results. If Mr. Dunn only had marshmallows this would be a non-event. The question we must ask ourselves is – When will we decide the senseless killing needs to end?

Bob
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0


The other passengers in LAX had guns. They could have stopped the shooter.


Everyone on planes should carry a 20 gauge shotgun
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
The way I look at it is that ours is a world governed by the aggressive use of force. Sure, we have civilization in order to temper said force but that's more of a facade really because regardless of how many laws we have on the books at the end of the day when you're alone with someone else in a dark alleyway and they want to do you harm it'll be a true battle of life and death. There will be no cop there to save you, no judge to immediately declare them guilty and no bailiff to haul them away. Ultimately YOU are the only person responsible for your own security.

At that point it's a question of how you will defend yourself. Sure, you can try to talk your way out of the situation (keeping in mind that the situation could be anything, such as a mall in New Jersey, ahem) and that may work... if they show you mercy. However, having a bit of knowledge about the bad guys out there (keep in mind I read just about every police report that comes through my department, including the interviews with the bad guys) precious few have as much as an iota of mercy in them. You could do everything they ask and they may still put a bullet in your head.

So, I don't consider talking your way out of it the best option, at best it's a crap shoot. You could call 911... if you have the opportunity to do so. Then you can wait for the response. And wait. And wait some more. I've worked in a 911 call center, I KNOW the response times. Three minutes is pretty much the best response time you can hope for. That seems fast, but it a life-or-death struggle that's an eternity. Plus, as I said, that's the best case scenario. If you're in Detroit the response time is more in the 45-60 minute range. I'm dead serious. You'd literally be better off calling for a pizza guy, they'd show up sooner and you may be able to bribe the thug with food. Or maybe you're way out in the sticks, when there are two patrol cars on duty for the entire county... again, they won't be there anytime soon no matter how much you scream into the phone.

That's not to say don't call 911, but if you're betting your life on a quick police response then you better be prepared for them to arrive in time to draw a chalk outline of your body and call in the medical examiner. Not a risk I'm willing to take. Call me crazy, but I prefer to live to see tomorrow.

That basically leaves an armed response of some type. Sure, you could use a knife. But you better have some martial arts training, be in shape, being stronger helps, etc. That doesn't really help the 90 lbs 19 year old woman walking home alone at night... she's immediately at a distinct disadvantage to a 200 lbs guy intent on doing her harm. Or a 90 year old WWII vet... fending off that 200 lbs 20 year old guy wouldn't have been a problem for him 60 years ago... but even with a knife he's at a distinct disadvantage even if the attacker is "unarmed" (though fists make mighty fine weapons if you're strong, healthy and young).

At the end of the day the only option that makes sense, to me, is arming yourself with a firearm in order to take responsibility for your own safety. Every other option results in you ceding your responsibility to someone else, whether it be the person attacking you (which is an outright terrible idea) or some good guy with a gun rushing to help you (which is better, but still not ideal). Keep in mind I haven't always felt this way... but having worked with the police for the past 17 years I've learned a few things about how the system works (or doesn't) and how bad guys think (or don't). I'd be lying if I said disarming yourself and letting others be responsible for your safety is a good idea... it isn't.

If you need proof that you're ultimately responsible for your own safety look no further than this recent article about the Virginia Tech shooting:

http://chronicle.com/article/article-content/142769/

Consider what that ruling truly means. The court outright said that neither the state nor the university is responsible for your safety, including their respective police forces. If THEY aren't responsible for your safety, who is? The bad guy? LOL! No... the only logical conclusion is that YOU and only YOU are responsible for your own safety. Proceed accordingly.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Everyone on planes should carry a 20 gauge shotgun

That would be incredibly unwieldy in a plane's fuselage. I would recommend a handgun.

/I'd have zero problem with anyone with a concealed carry license carrying on an airplane. Dead serious. I don't believe "gun free zones" should exist anywhere.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Hi Colovion,

Thank you for writing your response. I appreciate your sharing the background information which identifies how you have come to your position. I too have some background which helps me formulate my position. That does not mean that either of our positions is right or wrong – just that they are where we are coming from and a starting place from which we can dialogue.

At one point I drove a cab in a metropolitan area of about 1 million. While driving the cab I made it a point to work the “bad” side of town. I found in that experience that if you treat people with respect, they respond in kind. I never felt fear or unease even though some of my fares were likely individuals who could cause harm to others. Never carried a weapon, nor do I want to.

I understand what you are saying about the 90 lb. girl against the 200 lb man who wants to do her harm, or the 90 year old going up against the 20 year old thug. In both those instances, the trick in using a weapon (i.e., gun) is being able to get it when taken by surprise. I equate it to some of the junk insurance we are talking about in other threads – it gives you piece of mind and perhaps a false sense of security of its availability when you absolutely need it.

I prefer using my wits and experience to first avoid, and then get out of difficult situations when confronted. Looking to call 911 is an option, but not viable when someone can pull the trigger before you press the first digit. It makes no difference if the 911 response time is 3 minutes or 45 minutes, the response time of a bullet is milliseconds.

“The way I look at it is that ours is a world governed by the aggressive use of force. Sure, we have civilization in order to temper said force but that's more of a facade really because regardless of how many laws we have on the books …”

Yes there is aggression and violence. And there are individuals who will push the limits. But in a civilized society, limits are set and individuals become aware of those limits – they know there will be consequences to their actions. In the instance cited of Mr. Dunn pulling out his gun and shooting another over loud music, the existing laws did not prevent that. But there will be consequences for Mr. Dunn. And those consequences will give pause to other individuals that taking out one’s momentary anger are not acceptable in our society. No, it does not help the victim – he is still dead. But standards of behavior are set. Through the process of experience, our society learns how to raise those standards such that individuals are deterred because the consequences of their actions are unacceptable to them.

Will this save the immediate victim? No. Will this curb aggression and violence in our society? Yes. Individuals will learn there are consequences to their actions and a lawless, wild west mentality of behavior is not tolerated.

Now, as to carrying guns. In the instance of Mr. Dunn, the availability of a lethal weapon allowed Mr. Dunn to act on his emotion with tragic consequences. Had Mr. Dunn been able to reach in his pocket and only pull out marshmallows, this would have been a non-event. That is part of the push for gun control – limit the availability and you begin to cut into situations such as Mr. Dunn’s.

In your next post you said:

“I'd have zero problem with anyone with a concealed carry license carrying on an airplane.”

That thought might be worth re-thinking. It caused me to do a quick bit of research. A single bullet hole in the airliner’s structure may not be an issue. But if the bullet causes a window to shatter or there are multiple bullets fired, the results could be more devastating.

”Bullets cause explosive decompression”
“Aircraft fuselages are designed with ribs to prevent tearing; the size of the hole is one of the factors that determines the speed of decompression, and a bullet hole is too small to cause rapid or explosive decompression.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncontrolled_decompression

”Explosive decompression can occur when a bullet is fired through the fuselage of a pressurized airplane, causing the hole to grow dramatically and possibly cause the plane to break up as seen in movies.”

“busted”

“The pressure is not high enough and the hole is too small. Explosive decompression only occurred when a hole the size of a window was made with explosives. Even then, the rush of air could not suck Buster completely out of the hole. Lastly, there are proven instances of explosive decompression where the plane was still able to maintain control and land.”

http://mythbustersresults.com/episode10

Although a single bullet fired in an airliner cabin may not cause structural damage, the potential of killing or wounding of unintended individual(s) is still there.

You and I may continue to disagree and that is alright. Perhaps some of what I said may impact your thinking and open new possibilities for you, or perhaps both of us.

Thank you for sharing,
Bob
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I prefer using my wits and experience to first avoid, and then get out of difficult situations when confronted. Looking to call 911 is an option, but not viable when someone can pull the trigger before you press the first digit. It makes no difference if the 911 response time is 3 minutes or 45 minutes, the response time of a bullet is milliseconds.

An ounce of prevention is certainly worth a pound of cure. Using a gun in self-defense should indeed be a last resort. If you can get away, do it. Better yet if you can avoid going INTO situations where you're likely to be victimized then do that.

That last bit of advice often gets advocates of it in trouble. I work on a college campus, it isn't at all odd to see female students jogging around town in the dark, alone, perhaps with earbuds in their ears. Yes, it's a free country and all but if they were to jog past the wrong dude (as has happened every now and again)... it can turn out quite badly indeed. Not that they asked for an attack or anything but they put themselves into a situation where the odds of such an attack were higher than need be. There are Rec Buildings they can run in, or run in groups and don't obscure one of their senses while doing it.

But even if you do everything right (live in a safe neighborhood, are aware of your surroundings, etc.) you're at best lowering your odds of a violent encounter, not eliminating them unfortunately. Those odds never become zero. I'd put Ann Arbor up there with any urban area on the planet in terms of safety (it's one of the top places in the country to raise a family for a reason)... but I certainly know about defensive gun uses even here. While firearms should be a last resort they have to be an option in order for them to be that last resort.

Trust me, I'd be perfectly happy to never have to draw my gun. You're risking prison (regardless of the laws on the books) if you do so. The question is whether it is worth the risk at that moment. If it's a choice between risking prison or my life... well, there's only one option.

This is what any good firearms instructor should be teaching their students too, by the way. Mine certainly did. He wasn't the cheapest one out there but you get what you pay for often in life. This is what the NRA designed course teaches if the instructor adheres to it, not some "shoot first and ask questions later" ideology.
Print the post Back To Top