Students file complaint against CU gun ban‏

[MrBishop]

The good guys would be the ones pointing their guns at the guys shooting everyone else. I think I could sort that out pretty well.

Nah..then when the 'bad guys' retaliated at the 'good guys', then they'd be the ones pointing their guns at the guys shooting everyone else.

Two people shooting at other people, or two people running around holding weapons look the same -

To the Police, it'll be "They're not cops. They have guns. Stop them."
It *should* start with "Freeze! Police!" followed by the person putting their gun down, being arrested and questioned....but in the heat of the moment, that's not likely.

Now..here's one for you. Goodguy1 sees Goodguy2 with a gun. Goodguy2 sees Goodguy1 with a gun. Neither are identified as part of the 'goodguy' squad. Neither will take any chances...stop the other guy before they can kill others.

Who shoots first?

Here's an answer. If you're not a cop and you're brandishing a weapon, you're a criminal and viable target in these kinds of situations.

 

[Gonz]

Here's an answer. If you're not a cop and you're brandishing a weapon, you're a criminal and viable target in these kinds of situations.

Why does the badge give you special recongitive skills?

 

[pc_builder]

Why does the badge give you special recongitive skills?

I don't know anything about being a cop. But wouldn't it be safe to assume that they'd be trained trying to not get killed? Which would include neutralizing, in one way or another, potential threats? i.e. other people with guns, not identified as a law enforcement officer

Wouldn't they tell everyone to drop their weapons, good guy and bad?

 

[pc_builder]

Also, wouldn't it be safe to assume that most cops aren't of the 'shoot first, ask questions later' mentality?

Because if that's not true, the cops would seem to be the more dangerous ones here.

 

[Gonz]

In combat, (which this scenario is) dropping your weapon is a foolish move. With cops, not dropping your weapon is a foolish move. Would you rather be an unarmed fool or an armed fool?

The probability is conversations would ensue giving some clue as to who is who.

 

[MrBishop]

In combat, (which this scenario is) dropping your weapon is a foolish move. With cops, not dropping your weapon is a foolish move. Would you rather be an unarmed fool or an armed fool?

The probability is conversations would ensue giving some clue as to who is who.

That would leave "Not brandishing a weapon" being the only non-foolish move.

Conversation? "So...are you a terrorist?" wouldn't get you a weighted response?

"Umh...no, habibi, I am not"

 

[2minkey]

I don't know anything about being a cop. But wouldn't it be safe to assume that they'd be trained trying to not get killed? Which would include neutralizing, in one way or another, potential threats? i.e. other people with guns, not identified as a law enforcement officer

Wouldn't they tell everyone to drop their weapons, good guy and bad?

from what i understand there are a lot of cops that rarely fire their weapons. they may need to qualify or requalify for their departments periodically as far as basic operations but they probably don't have nearly the range time as most "enthusiasts." ...so i don't think i'd be particularly confident in those guys/gals, with the exception of the SWAT folks. i've probably put far more rounds downrange than most cops. speaking of which...

 

[Frodo]

Nah..then when the 'bad guys' retaliated at the 'good guys', then they'd be the ones pointing their guns at the guys shooting everyone else.

Two people shooting at other people, or two people running around holding weapons look the same -

To the Police, it'll be "They're not cops. They have guns. Stop them."
It *should* start with "Freeze! Police!" followed by the person putting their gun down, being arrested and questioned....but in the heat of the moment, that's not likely.

Now..here's one for you. Goodguy1 sees Goodguy2 with a gun. Goodguy2 sees Goodguy1 with a gun. Neither are identified as part of the 'goodguy' squad. Neither will take any chances...stop the other guy before they can kill others.

Who shoots first?

Here's an answer. If you're not a cop and you're brandishing a weapon, you're a criminal and viable target in these kinds of situations.

So, if the terrorist put on a police uniform, they would be able to walk around all day shooting people at random and nobody will recognize them as the bad guys? You make it sound like it would be a free for all with everyone shooting at random.

Here's the deal. If I'm sitting at the food court of a mall and shots ring out, I will notice that everone is running away from someone shooting at them. Bingo, there's my target. If I see a person with weapon drawn and working carefully towards the commotion, I would naturally assume he/she is doing exactly the samething I'm doing. Why would I open fire on them and vice versa? I would also expect the cops to have the same situational awareness at a minimum. Even if I end up in a Mexican stand off because I'm not sure if the other guy is the shooter, well then, I have achieved my goal of preventing more killing and can wait for police.

 

[pc_builder]

If I see a person with weapon drawn and working carefully towards the commotion, I would naturally assume he/she is doing exactly the samething I'm doing. Why would I open fire on them and vice versa?

Why would you "naturally assume" he/she is doing exactly the same thing as you? Wouldn't you suspect he/she could be an accomplice, coming to aid the shooter? Just as easily as he/she could suspect you of being the shooter's accomplice?

And I wouldn't have my weapon drawn if I were you. If people running past you realize you're holding a gun, too, they may duck, or run away from you even. Making you an easy target for the shooter to take down. Or these people running could attack you, thinking you another "bad guy" as it were.

There are many factors in any situation. You can't expect everything to go your way in a scenario like that. You can hope, and you can try to induce events to bring the situation to a satisfactory close. But just because you are a licensed gun owner does not mean that you will survive and the bad guy will see justice.

I have to truncate my answer. Gotta go buy more cheese for the lasagna.

 

[MrBishop]

See post #17 - Jim's * The Dawson College shootings. One person died in the shootings (not counting the shooter) - several people got given medals for bravery.

One guy distracted the shooter and allowed himself to be taken hostage and 'steered the shooter' away from populated zones. *He exchanged himself for a wounded girl*
One guy pulled shot victims away from the killing zone risking his own life in the process
One woman pulled kids out of the hallways and locked them in a classroom and turned off the lights.
Two cops who were in the area and responded quickly enough to corner the shooter and help evac the rest of the students.

The shooter capped himself. None of the 'heroes' fired a shot.

 

[spike]

yeah youre right. cops dont need guns, they carry them because theyre afraid

moron

They carry them because they're required for their job. Ever learn about apples and oranges?

You've demonstrated your childish need to throw a tantrum and resort to insults whenever you are unable to debate subject many times now. Time to grow up buddy.

pretty evident to anyone capable of elementary reading coprehension. if that rules you out so be it

Actually it's pretty evident to anyone capable of elemetary reading comprehension that you can't hide behind someone while staying away from them and that you seem incapable of making rational statements.

nope thats your bag. and i would absolutely love to watch you do it

It's your bag becuase you made the statement. You're just avoiding the question.....Why would you have to say it froma distance?

doesn't need it. all he has to do a reply to a question with a question that eludes the original discussion and hes a genious apparantly

Is that why you're avoiding my questions? You think it makes you a genious?

 

[MrBishop]

So, if the terrorist put on a police uniform, they would be able to walk around all day shooting people at random and nobody will recognize them as the bad guys? You make it sound like it would be a free for all with everyone shooting at random.

Here's the deal. If I'm sitting at the food court of a mall and shots ring out, I will notice that everone is running away from someone shooting at them. Bingo, there's my target. If I see a person with weapon drawn and working carefully towards the commotion, I would naturally assume he/she is doing exactly the samething I'm doing. Why would I open fire on them and vice versa? I would also expect the cops to have the same situational awareness at a minimum. Even if I end up in a Mexican stand off because I'm not sure if the other guy is the shooter, well then, I have achieved my goal of preventing more killing and can wait for police.

Shots echo, crowds panic and will run in EVERY friggin' direction to get out of the way. They will run from anyone carrying a weapon, including you. You're at K heading towards S.
Some other guy is at Q
Cops are coming in at A

Who the hell knows where the shooter(s) is/are. The cops will have communication so they know where THEY are. Even mall cops will have their walky-talkies/Cell-phones.

The smartest thing you can do is to leave the mall.
The bravest is 'take as many people as you can out with you.
If you insist on pulling your piece, it should be in the defense of those you're helping to leave.

The moment you start hunting for bad guys to shoot, you're taking the law into your own hands.

 

[Frodo]

Why would you "naturally assume" he/she is doing exactly the same thing as you? Wouldn't you suspect he/she could be an accomplice, coming to aid the shooter? Just as easily as he/she could suspect you of being the shooter's accomplice?

He's not shooting the people running away!

And I wouldn't have my weapon drawn if I were you. If people running past you realize you're holding a gun, too, they may duck, or run away from you even. Making you an easy target for the shooter to take down. Or these people running could attack you, thinking you another "bad guy" as it were.

I would hope that they would duck or stay away from me. It would give me a clearer shot at the perpetrator.

There are many factors in any situation. You can't expect everything to go your way in a scenario like that. You can hope, and you can try to induce events to bring the situation to a satisfactory close. But just because you are a licensed gun owner does not mean that you will survive and the bad guy will see justice.

I know it is risky, but I also know it is riskier to do nothing and let the shooter go on about his business. Sometimes you have to man up!! While these are high pucker factor situations, I know that you have to accept some risk to avoid making a mistake. So far, I have been lucky. I'm still alive and can say that I never killed anyone I did not want dead.

 

[Frodo]

The moment you start hunting for bad guys to shoot, you're taking the law into your own hands.

If no one is getting killed, I'm not going to be searching. I will defend in place offering protection for anyone nearby.

 

[pc_builder]

He's not shooting the people running away!

Doesn't mean he's a good guy. Bad guys don't think in such simplistic terms. "Shoot the people running away because that's what I do."

I would hope that they would duck or stay away from me. It would give me a clearer shot at the perpetrator.

And just as easily gives the perpetrator a clearer shot at you. Just because he's the bad guy doesn't mean he has lower awareness and won't notice you. Also, I see you didn't respond to the second part about the other people attacking you. That could just as easily happen.

I know it is risky, but I also know it is riskier to do nothing and let the shooter go on about his business. Sometimes you have to man up!! While these are high pucker factor situations, I know that you have to accept some risk to avoid making a mistake. So far, I have been lucky. I'm still alive and can say that I never killed anyone I did not want dead.

This isn't about manning up, cowboy.

 

[Frodo]

One guy distracted the shooter and allowed himself to be taken hostage and 'steered the shooter' away from populated zones. *He exchanged himself for a wounded girl*.

What happens if the shooter is not in hostage taking mood? Not something I would count on.

One guy pulled shot victims away from the killing zone risking his own life in the process
One woman pulled kids out of the hallways and locked them in a classroom and turned off the lights.

Agreed, they were heros!!

Two cops who were in the area and responded quickly enough to corner the shooter and help evac the rest of the students.

And if they are not in the area?

 

[MrBishop]

If no one is getting killed, I'm not going to be searching. I will defend in place offering protection for anyone nearby.

Better to get them the hell out, yourself included than defend the place.

 

[MrBishop]

What happens if the shooter is not in hostage taking mood? Not something I would count on.



Agreed, they were heros!!



And if they are not in the area?

I'm giving you a historical perspective.. not a 'what if' scenario.
The shooter had taken a hostage/human shield. Regardless... the goal is to remove targets/victims as fast as possible (Evac), then lock-down the situation, then take out the shooter. If you insist on staying..you're adding to the problem, and not to the solution.

 

[Frodo]

Doesn't mean he's a good guy. Bad guys don't think in such simplistic terms. "Shoot the people running away because that's what I do."./QUOTE]

If he is not shooting, then I have time to watch him.

And just as easily gives the perpetrator a clearer shot at you. Just because he's the bad guy doesn't mean he has lower awareness and won't notice you. Also, I see you didn't respond to the second part about the other people attacking you. That could just as easily happen.

They didn't attack the shooter, did they?

This isn't about manning up, cowboy.

Is it about dying in the fetal positon under a table?

 

[Frodo]

I'm giving you a historical perspective.. not a 'what if' scenario.
The shooter had taken a hostage/human shield. Regardless... the goal is to remove targets/victims as fast as possible (Evac), then lock-down the situation, then take out the shooter. If you insist on staying..you're adding to the problem, and not to the solution.

There are lots of historicals where my hypotheticals were true. I think we have an agreement on one point though. If no one is in immediate danger, then I would get the hell out of there. All my comments are based on the assumption that there are still people in danger/actively being killed.

Just to add, a quiet hostage scenario is not what I consider a time to charge in.