Nebraska Shooting - What The Hell Happened

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Mountainman, Dec 6, 2007.

  1. Mountainman

    Mountainman Großes Mitglied Site Supporter+++

    They have concealed carry there. All I read on the Fox News site is how people said they ran or were hiding. Didn't any of them have a weapon on them??? Or did the mall have signs at the entrances saying weapons were not allowed inside??? Per NE law if a sign is posted it is illegal to bring one in, BS!!!
  2. hacon1

    hacon1 Monkey+++

    Guns are not allowed in the mall. I guess the shooter didn't get that memo! You are correct though, they do have CCW in that state.

    It just baffles me!
  3. Mountainman

    Mountainman Großes Mitglied Site Supporter+++

    Guns are not allowed in the mall, that's just F'in GREAT! In Orygun I carry everywhere I go except city, state and fed buildings. I could care less if they have a sign saying I can't. Like the saying goes, "I would rather be judged be 12 the carried by 6".
  4. <exile>

    <exile> Padawan Learner

    Just waiting for the day that happens, someone stops a crime in progress using a gun that was 'illegal' in the current situation but saves lives...will be interesting to watch the press put their spin on it.

    "Hero or Criminal?" Story at 11!

    BTW, didn't realize a SKS now qualified as an assault rifle.

  5. hartage

    hartage Monkey+++

    Does not really matter much if you were carrying a sidearm or not he had an sks. Unless you were already by him or somehow got close behind him he would simply have cut you down. His weapon was already out an he is already firing it. He has a rifle, a pistol in that situation might as well be a fly swatter. Unless you had something with the range and accuracy to match (another rifle) you couldn't do much. Might as well just run like everybody else did.

    Only if there were several people with pistols all approaching him then there might be a chance of taking him down. But a single person with a pistol vs an sks ? I would have run like a screaming baby..... Well at least out to my car and get my sks. Then go back and take the guy out with something that has equal range.

    Before any arm-chair rambos out there flames me for being realistic..... Law enforcement won't go after a guy with an sks using a pistol. Last time they tried they were cut down. Remember the north hollywood bank shootout ? Ok so they had AK's with much larger ammo capacity but same result. After north hollywood shootout it became policy for cops to have an AR in the trunk.
  6. BAT1

    BAT1 Cowboys know no fear

    Some down and out kid who lost his place to live, his girlfriend and his job. He grabbed his dads gun and took innocent life before taking his own. This a tragedy the the Brady bunch will milk it for all its worth. Couldn't happen at a worst time being the holidays AND the Supremes looking at the DC gun ban. Even an LEO could of only ran for cover and at least laid some suppresing fire but that might of killed some one else. Some company will make a killing putting metal detectors and LEO's with AR's in those stupid gun free zones.
    The very presence of guns anywhere and everywhere deters evil intent. G. Washington
  7. TnAndy

    TnAndy Senior Member Founding Member

    The mall here in town has "no weapons" posted on the doors, hidden in a whole list of rules.

    I carry anyway, just for such a reason...I too will take the "judge by 12 over carried by 6" theory.

    Although I agree a pistol versus a rifle is a poor match, I wouldn't call it a flyswatter.
    I'd sure take my chances with mine over a set of steak knives on display in the houseware section.

    I'd have been firing at him anyway....if nothing else, to let him know that SOMEBODY else was armed. The natural instinct of being shot at would be to duck, and maybe that would have saved a few lives....and who knows, you might get lucky and hit the bastard.

    From what I understand, he was up in a balcony type stairwell that overlooked the department store he was if nothing else, you might have bounced a few rounds off the stair rail or walls around him, keeping him pinned down somewhat.

    You have to consider the shooter as this case, it was a 19 year old kid, who likely would have followed normal human reactions to duck if shot at.....whereas the two guys that robbed the bank in S.Cal were obviously mentally and physically prepared to be shot at, wearing vests, helmets, even leg gear to resist pistol rounds.....these guys were more dead calm than most combat veterans......they would have been truly scary to take on.
  8. Blackjack

    Blackjack Monkey+++

    No major disagreement on the handgun vs. sks issue Hartage.... the snubby 357 I carry wouldn't be a match for him. Unless I found myself behind him and unseen, I'd be running for cover as well.

    It just depends on where your at and what's at stake. It is doable.

    I'd be afraid to just lay down some fire from a distance in such a crowded place.
  9. dukenukum

    dukenukum Monkey+++

    fox news said it was an ak 47 whats going on my tinfoil hat thinks this was rigged up[tf]
  10. Binford

    Binford Monkey+++

    Sure a pistol cartridge is little match for a rifle round power-for-power, but that is completely irrelevant here. The issue would have been how the armed citizen was positioned relative to the shooter.

    Shots ring out and people duck and find cover. Then they determine where the shooter is. Mr. Armed Citizen sees the shooter over by the balcony, with his back to him, shooting down at the people below. This would present a perfect opportunity for the armed citizen to stop the shooter.

    Had the armed citizen found himself in the middle of the mall out in the open with the shooter up above firing, running like he'd never run before would be the order of the moment. Once behind cover, he then might be able to shoot, if he was in a position to do so.

    Last year in near-by Tacoma, an employee at the mall was armed with a handgun and had the shooter in a position he could have fired from. Rather, he had reholstered his pistol and talked to the shooter instead. "You don't want to do this, man!" he said. I think he was hit 3 times doing this and is now paralyzed from the waist down. Same thing--pistol vs. rifle. He had the opportunity to employ his pistol effectively, but chose not to and was shot for it. It had nothing at all to do with rifle vs. pistol. It had everything to do with a poor choice of tactics.

    Speaking of poor choices of tactics, "cover fire" would be stupid here. Your name is on every bullet that leaves your gun. You're responsible for where each of them end up. Same with the shooter, but he didn't care. We would. That's the difference. "Know your target and what's behind it."

    I hope the victims sue the pants off the mall for preventing them from having the tools necessary to have done something to protect themselves. The idiots making insane decisions such as that need to start getting spanked. Hard.

  11. hartage

    hartage Monkey+++

    Even though I don't disagree with you I don't agree either. That 19yo had a deathwish. I'm sure he would have been as calm as a door nail, he was ready to die. I'm sure as with every 19yo male today he would have been fed a constant diet of first person shooters (video games). He would have had likely excellent hand-eye cooordination, excellent target aquiring skills. I'm sure, becuase games force you to, he would have been used to taking cover while firing.

    The only thing he may not have are physical shooting skills, breathing, proper rest, trigger control, etc. Matters little since if he misses he'll just pull the trigger again and again till he's empty.

    The kid had a deathwish. That is about as dangerous as they come.
  12. hartage

    hartage Monkey+++

    First off, I did say "unless you are next the shooter" and "could have somehow gotten behind him". So I did acknowledge those two circumstances with a pistol.

    Secondly it is NOT ABOUT power for power. It is about putting rounds on target. I would much rather have had a .22 rifle over a .44 pistol in this case. I would have stood a much better chance of putting rounds on target.

    In the real world pistols are only superior in two things. Concealability and extreme close range (arms length and closer). Beyond those two, the advantages of having a shoulder stabilize the weapon (stock) is just too big of an advantage.

    Well unless your a movie/tv character with perfect aim while the bad guys all forget their prescription glasses at home.
  13. Mountainman

    Mountainman Großes Mitglied Site Supporter+++

    You beat me to the punch, posting what I ment about an armed person taking on the gunman. You would avoid at all cost taking someone head on shooting a rifle with a pistol, unless they were coming at you.

    As far as carrying on private property where a sign says it is not allowed, you need to check your state laws to find out if it is really illegal. After posting last night I checked into the CC laws of Oregon and if they find you on "no firearms allowed" posted private property, they can only tell you to leave and if you don't you can be arrested for trespassing. Check into your individual state laws and don't just ask a LEO, they probably don't want you carrying anyway.

    Oregon info from Oregon Firearms Federation: . The info I am reffering to is about 3/4 down the page.
  14. ozarkgoatman

    ozarkgoatman Resident goat herder

    Pistol vs. rifle, not good odds, but not a death sentence either. Most 19 y/o's these days have never been taught to shoot a gun, so they spray and pray. If you got to cover and could use something for support then you would have a fair chance at taking him out, provided you did your homework before you got in that situation.

  15. hartage

    hartage Monkey+++

    He killed 9 people injured 5 with about 20 shots. That is not praying and spraying.

    That is just par for the course. Most first person shooter games (very common with young males) today are more realistic than ever. Gone are the days of rambo emulated in a video game. You can no longer just run and shoot. Today most games strive for some level of reality. Taking cover because the badguys aim are just as good as yours. Going from cover to cover or you get cut down.

    Good or bad game companies today hire technical consultants that are vets, special forces etc. They weigh in using their experience to make the games emulate what they went through. It is all emluated now... feeling of vulnerability, feeling of camraderie, of loss when your team mate that you were just talking too and have been with you for hours helping you is now dead.

    Good or bad kids nowadays through videogames are given significant skills to be unnervingly effective in killing people. Why do you think the old-time gun scares of bygone days are now replaced with high bodycount encounters ? Through games kids are getting wartime killing skills without the necessary understanding of loss of life.

    We train our tankers, front line troops, fighter pilots, etc through video games how to kill. Apparantly we also teach the same to our kids.

    Not a death sentence no, but pretty damned close. We can play what-if all day long but reality is this. We don't arm our front line troops with just pistols. If you are confronting and trying to approach a shooter armed with an AK-47 that is shooting people, you ARE a front line soldier at that point. Assaulting an AK-47 defended position with a pistol is just suicidal.
  16. ozarkgoatman

    ozarkgoatman Resident goat herder

    In a packed mall during the holiday season, I'm willing to bet you could do that by spraying and praying. I will say that I haven't been in one of those #&!! holes in years, but I'm sure they haven't gotten any less packed.

    Yes the military does use video games but they also put real rounds down range. So could he hit someone that has taken cover and only has the right side of his head exposed to see his sights? I don't know? Maybe he could, most couldn't.

  17. Tango3

    Tango3 Aimless wanderer

    certainly not looking to start a flame war, but my first.02 on the pistol v rifle scenario being:You're in a public place there's the safety of the crowd(or herd or school of fish ).,he can only aim and fire at one individual at a time.if that unlucky person is to shooters 2:00,and you are at shooters 10:00,you may have time to draw and fire before he aquires you.You have one target;he has identified himself by firing a center fire rifle. He has to sort you out of 30 screaming running diving people; If you have not got a shot off; You may not be identified as any more threatening than any other potential target until either the sound or bullet reaches him.
    If you arehit but wounded during the initial shot, and shooter walks around calmly executing the wounded he'll have a real surprise when he gets close to check...gotta say the high ground and death wish; gave this one nut case a supreme advantage.
  18. hartage

    hartage Monkey+++

    The answer is yes. Again most games today (first person shooters) strive for reality. Bad guys shoot at you from behind cover, most of the time it is with just a head and the weapon exposed.

    The rest is just mechanics (pulling the trigger, holding stable) that can be learned while shooting his .22 or out with his dad with the AK target shooting. It can be learned quickly.

    I'm not saying he is a super soldier and will win against an experienced shooter in equal terms. But he has an AK-47 and the discussion is about people with pistols taking him out. In my eyes, the skills found in most young men today (video game + common shooting skills via plinking) in the situation with them being armed with an AK and the aggressors armed with a pistol I wouldn't bet the house on the guy with a pistol. If you ARE the guy armed with a pistol and try to take him on, you ARE betting the house and everything else.
  19. hartage

    hartage Monkey+++

    You had better hope that if you draw you are close to him already. Even large spaces with lots of people clear pretty quickly with gunfire. If you have to still cover space and he aquires you what little advantage you had is gone.

    He has a deathwish he will be calm and collected. He has a shoulder stabalized weapon (rifle) it is semi automatic 30 round clip. You wanna go back to your family your heart is pounding and you have a pistol. Those are not good odds.
  20. Mountainman

    Mountainman Großes Mitglied Site Supporter+++

    You either don't know how to shoot a pistol or don't know what your talking about, probably both. I can shoot a human silhouette target at 25 yards all day long and hit it in the chest with a standard Glock, also not to bad at 50 yards. I know this is while not being under fire, but with enough practice 25 yard shots should not be a problem and 50 yard shots are reasonable. I also practice shooting a Ruger 22 pistol at 100 yards and I would not want to be the target down range.
survivalmonkey SSL seal warrant canary