Armed citizens USELESS against terrorists

[Wheeler]

I know what you mean, but you and any others who make that choice are in a very big minority. Which is why the % of people who carry everywhere is so low.

I'm conflicted with placing legal onus on employers to adequately protect their employees while on site as that kind of flies in the face of private property rights, but we may come to a time when we will have to make a call on priorities: self preservation or property rights. I'd rather that choice be made voluntarily by employers than legal mandate. I'm not holding my breath though for either solution, so it will have to come down to personal choices re policy.

Just to clarify, I don't carry where it's illegal. Georgia law is pretty specific about where I can and can't legally carry. I do my best to adhere to that guideline. I also tèy to be respectful of other folks property rights, which is why I have issues with the majority of the OC Zealots.

[Alpha Sierra]

I'm conflicted with placing legal onus on employers to adequately protect their employees while on site as that kind of flies in the face of private property rights,

I'm not conflicted at all. They can't have it both ways.

[John Hearne]

I apologize as I haven't read every message and someone may have made this point already.

To me, this is about searching for perfect answers. We want answers that involve the good guys going home at night and the bad guys being smited. The real world doesn't work that way. Often we are stuck choosing which option sucks less.

Suppose four gunmen attack a mall. In the first contact with an armed citizen, the citizen kills one, wounds another, and is then killed. Is this sub-optimal - YES! But, you have reduced the enemy numbers by 25% and reduced the effectiveness of one of the remaining bad guys. You've also shown them that this won't be the cake walk there were expecting.

Suppose that they are engaged by another armed citizen who also kills one and wounds another before being killed. Is this sub-optimal - YES! But, you have now reduced the enemy by 1/2 and dramatically reduced their effectiveness. Will this group be able to round up everyone and massacre them, probably not. Will they be slowed significantly? Probably. Is this a problem of the size that "professional first responders" can more easily address? Yes, it is.

If we search for perfect answers to these problems, we're not going to find them. If the history of terrorism in the last several decades has taught us anything, it's that there will be casualties - it's just a matter of how many and how do we reduce that number within the confines of the resources we have. As best I can tell, killing the terrorists as soon as possible is the best of the sucky options.

[45dotACP]

Yeah, I wouldn't call leaving a dead terrorist on the floor useless...sure I didn't survive and that sucks and my friends and family will mourn me, but that's one less terrorist to take a Kosher market hostage and kill 4 people who will be dearly missed by their families and friends.

[Malamute]

...If we search for perfect answers to these problems, we're not going to find them. If the history of terrorism in the last several decades has taught us anything, it's that there will be casualties - it's just a matter of how many and how do we reduce that number within the confines of the resources we have. As best I can tell, killing the terrorists as soon as possible is the best of the sucky options.

Anything that not only kills any of them, but slows them with either casualties or harrasing fire, can limit their movements, give others time to get out, and other help to arrive.

I dont think it would necessarily take a large volume of fire to do that.

[TAZ]

Each and every one of us here understands that there is no such thing as a guarantee of any sorts when the bullets start flying. You could do everything just like a Delta guy and still get dead, or you could step on your willy and kill every bad guy whilst jumping about in agony. We is all agree that doing something even if the end result only slows down the shooters long enough to kill us is better than just getting dead. Each of us also understands that if they are shooting at me they aren't shooting at my wife or kids or ... and are willing to take the chance of getting hurt or killed if it means our families have a better chance at survival. These concepts are foreign to a lot of our liberal "friends". They also have an agenda and so they will use every means necessary to discredit any ideas that are contrary to that agenda. If guns can't be 100% effective and save every one then they are useless for civilians and should only be handled by the government.

I'd like to see what happens to a SWAT team member or 2 sitting on their asses with their guns hidden when a normal gunman walks in. Similar result I bet, but in pretty sure it won't make any headlines. Doesn't fit the agenda.

[Coyotesfan97]

I've done plenty of FoF as a student, actor, and instructor. Someone said it before but those were two "bad guys " who knew they were in a Sims scenario and they knew there was one actor with a gun inside. Their tactics at times sucked even though they were doing slow and deliberate searches. I'm not sure how many active shooters do that. They muzzled each other multiple times. They turned their backs on long hallways.

They took multiple rounds and continued the scenario. The actors with the handgun took rounds and went down.

It's a different story if you put someone if there who knows angles and how to play them.

[1slow]

Put the attackers and defenders in t shirts, safety goggles and airsoft helmets. A pain penalty changes the dynamic.

[Mitchell, Esq.]

All I got from this was:

1 Untrained people aren't going to react to the standard they believe they will under stress
2 Better to have a gun and delay/force the expenditure of time/ammo on yourself than allow terrorists to be unopposed
3 Force on force exposes flaws and teaches lessons yet again

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I had recorded the Terror at the Mall HBO special and my take away points watching it were:

1. Of thousands of people, very few were armed.
2. The Kenyan police and military commanders lacked true grit and just postured outside.
3. A small number of armed folks who defied orders managed to save scores of people.

In my FOF fun and games, a prepared defender who isn't blitzed can truly mess up folks entering a room. I agree that even airsoft can give you an ouch. They break the skin close up (I know - wah, wah - full auto ain't fun).