The Only Way To Deal With A Situation Like Orlando

[2aguy]

In a crowd density like that club it could take too much time to get an angle for a clean shot.

The gunman didn't have any trouble getting an angle. Besides, if enough are armed, one has to be close enough when he enters.

Ok, you keep thinking that, I'm telling you what will work to minimize causalities 100% of the time.

And you're not wrong. It would minimize casualties. So would actually arming the victims, since they'd be able to gun down the lowlife as soon as he enters the building and raises his gun.

Just seeing someone raising a gun in a crowd doesn't justify shooting them, it could be an undercover cop seeing something you don't. You obviously haven't had much training.

You're right, I've had zero training. So uh, how many cops carry an AR-15?

Now days......you will probably find one in every squad car.........family in law enforcement has one in his squad.....along with the pump shotgun up front.....

The AR-15 is a cop gun....

 

[2aguy]

No gun free zones and open or concealed carry in all states would cause anyone to think twice about opening fire on a crowd of people. We never hear about any of these creeps going into a biker bar and opening fire, do we?

Most states don't allow firearms in bars, licensed or not.

Virginia just allowed it last year....and their crime in bars went down 5.9%..........

 

[2aguy]

In a crowd density like that club it could take too much time to get an angle for a clean shot.

The gunman didn't have any trouble getting an angle. Besides, if enough are armed, one has to be close enough when he enters.

Ok, you keep thinking that, I'm telling you what will work to minimize causalities 100% of the time.

And you're not wrong. It would minimize casualties. So would actually arming the victims, since they'd be able to gun down the lowlife as soon as he enters the building and raises his gun.

Just seeing someone raising a gun in a crowd doesn't justify shooting them, it could be an undercover cop seeing something you don't. You obviously haven't had much training.

Another thing people aren't considering in this particular situation when they said more guns would have helped is that it was obviously a very crowded club. I'm not sure a bunch of untrained people shooting across the club would have made the situation much better. How do you even tell who the bad guy is at that point?

That is why you use your gun to help you exit the place.....if you encounter the guy you can defend yourself....or if you are hiding you can defend yourself if he finds you.....

Everyone who is interested in this needs to see the documentary..."Terror at the Mall" where the muslim terrorists murdered people in the mall in Kenya.....you can see exactly where armed civilians could have saved lives and stopped the shooters...and in fact, a few armed people did save lives....watch that movie....they show the attack from the CCTV footage..you see people who are hiding and are found by the killers.....had they had pistols of their own they would have survived...

 

[2aguy]

I didn't read much of this thread but the opening OP and a few comments prove one thing, Americans are ... I 'm not sure how to say that nicely.

But this is America folks, according to our congress, the NRA, presidential candidates galore, gun makers and a weird reading of the 2nd every nutcase has a right to be a mass murderer. It's written into the baloney that passes for thought in America, having a zillion guns keeps you safe, well it doesn't but that doesn't really matter. Any nut hate filled person and or mentally unstable crackpot has this right, didn't the SCOTUS say so? And folks Congress needs money to pad their pockets and gun makers, and the NRA provide it, along with the blessing of idiots in journalism. This is so simple folks, it comes with the freedom to be stupid. Consequences don't matter when you say freedom five times.

Oh and for those who think rushing a loaded assault rifle is a sensible option, why not give it a try. The genetic makeup of the country would surely be improved.

And you are talking out of your ass.....Europe disarmed after world war 1 and then went on to murder 12 million unarmed people...

Americans have 357,000,000 guns in private hands...

1,500,000 times a year Americans use those guns to stop violent criminal attack and even some mass shooters....

There are 586 accidental gun deaths in 2014.....with 357,000,000 million guns in private hands...so we handle our guns responsibly...

there were 8,124 gun murders in 2014......that means less than 8,124 guns were used to commit murder out of 357,000,000 million guns...so our guns are not being used for mruder.....of those people who commit those murders, 90% of them are convicted felons who cannot legally own or carry a gun....

70-80% of gun murder victims....are also convicted felons....

our gun crime is confined to very small areas of our inner cities....run with the left wing policies of the democrat party....

if you really want to stop gun crime...deal with single teen mothers......for generations they have been having male children they can't turn into adult men......they are doing the majority of all gun murder and gun crime in this country...

But dealing with the actual problem...that is hard......not dealing with the problem by banning guns...that you guys will do....

 

[2aguy]

This may sound counter intuitive but the only way to save lives when a gunman opens fire in a crowd is for the crowd to collapse on them and take them down and never give them a chance to reload. No shooter would get off more than a few rounds if people were taught to respond in this manner.

You thoughts?

Well if they didn't have a magazine that held more than say 6 or 10 bullets maybe your theory might work.

But that's not reality in America. Here in America a person can have an assault weapon that kills large amounts of people in a matter of a few minutes. Large capacity magazines to ensure they kill a large amount of humans before they have to reload.

Here's a idea. Ban high capacity magazines.

Here's another idea. Ban assault weapons.

If this man had not had access to an assault weapon and high capacity magazine clips, none of this would have happened.

And don't tell me that can't be done. It was done in the 90s. The republicans allowed the ban to expire in the bush boy years and we've had countless mass murders since then.

By the way, democrats tried to ban weapons from terrorists and possible terrorists. The republicans filibustered the bill and killed it.

So when the republicans stop preventing common sense laws from being enacted, THEN I might take you all seriously about terrorism and mass murders.

Right now, you're part of the problem so nothing you all say or do means anything to me.

Wrong...magazine capacity has nothing to do with the number of people killed....this has been studied and it is a lie.....every mass shooting, including this one could have been done with pistols, even revolvers, or shotguns.....the target makes the killing a high number, not the gun....

The 1990s Assault WEapon ban did absolutely nothing.....let me repeat....the Assault Weapon ban did nothing....

This guy passed 1 comprehensive background check to be employed in that security company, and 1 federally mandated background check to get the guns....he was interviewed by trained FBI agents looking directly at him for terrorist behavior...and crazy behavior....and they had him under surveillance 2 times and did a full record search on the guy.....

So what gun law exactly would have stopped him....? Please..do tell....

And there are zero AR-15s in France...there are zero fully automatic rifles in France...they are completely illegal, you can't buy them in gun stores or gun shows because gun stores and gun shows, they do not exist and you cannot own them or buy them anywhere.......

And terrorists and criminals get fully automatic rifles easily....and terrorists on government watch lists for terrorism got them and murdered 140 people and injured several hundred more......in a country with every single gun control law you could name.........and fewer civil liberties than we have......

And yet you think the gun is the problem ...really?

 

[2aguy]

Given proper military training...

... it might be possible, but...

.. you willin' to be the first to go unarmed...

... up against an AR-15?

This may sound counter intuitive but the only way to save lives when a gunman opens fire in a crowd is for the crowd to collapse on them and take them down and never give them a chance to reload. No shooter would get off more than a few rounds if people were taught to respond in this manner.

You thoughts?

Or arm the victims to start with. It was a gun free zone.

Every police who responded to that murder that evening had a weapon.

It took ELEVEN highly trained police offers to stop and kill that man but you believe an untrained civilian who is partying will.

That's the problem with you people. YOU DON'T THINK.

Yep....it has happened before and it is more likely to happen when people actually have guns to do it with........do yourself some good...go and read the actual stories of civilian self defense with guns.......you would actually learn and know something before you posted.....

 

[2aguy]

This may sound counter intuitive but the only way to save lives when a gunman opens fire in a crowd is for the crowd to collapse on them and take them down and never give them a chance to reload. No shooter would get off more than a few rounds if people were taught to respond in this manner.

You thoughts?

Well if they didn't have a magazine that held more than say 6 or 10 bullets maybe your theory might work.

But that's not reality in America. Here in America a person can have an assault weapon that kills large amounts of people in a matter of a few minutes. Large capacity magazines to ensure they kill a large amount of humans before they have to reload.

Here's a idea. Ban high capacity magazines.

Here's another idea. Ban assault weapons.

If this man had not had access to an assault weapon and high capacity magazine clips, none of this would have happened.

And don't tell me that can't be done. It was done in the 90s. The republicans allowed the ban to expire in the bush boy years and we've had countless mass murders since then.

By the way, democrats tried to ban weapons from terrorists and possible terrorists. The republicans filibustered the bill and killed it.

So when the republicans stop preventing common sense laws from being enacted, THEN I might take you all seriously about terrorism and mass murders.

Right now, you're part of the problem so nothing you all say or do means anything to me.

It would work if they had a hundred round magazine. Now run along with your gun grabbing bullshit.

So you advocate that more people are killed?

That's not very smart.

The logical way to stop all this is to do what has already been tried here and in other nations and has proven to succeed.

Ban high capacity magazines.
Ban assault weapons.

That's not banning ALL guns. It's just taking military style weapons out of the civilian population keeping them where they belong. In the military.

Since it took ELEVEN highly trained police to stop him, what makes you think that untrained people who are partying will?

We didn't have this problem when assault weapons weren't available to the general public. Which was most of the history of our nation. It wasn't until the last 4 or so decades that these weapons were available.

America was just fine. In fact, you people want to return to those days in many ways. Why not in this way?

France banned all of it....and criminals and terrorists get all of it easily including explosives and grenades.....you are wrong again.....140 people murdered with completely illegal, fully automatic rifles and magazines........in a country that completely bans them.........

Please...define "high capacity" magazine.....

 

[2aguy]

This may sound counter intuitive but the only way to save lives when a gunman opens fire in a crowd is for the crowd to collapse on them and take them down and never give them a chance to reload. No shooter would get off more than a few rounds if people were taught to respond in this manner.

You thoughts?

The first real instincts of humans when faced with danger is to protect themselves from harm, run, get out of the way...in essence become a coward and protect you. This John Wayne bullshit you NRA gun toting fuck heads keep putting out here is all fantasy. Perhaps in a few incidents hero's emerge and yes there are times when all envolved can prevent further mayham, but time and time again, most people are caught off guard and their survival instincts prevail.

Please if you want to offer advice or co sign onto Trump bullshit, find a website for comedians and have at it.

Do some research.....read actual encounteres rather than talking out of your ass...

 

[2aguy]

This may sound counter intuitive but the only way to save lives when a gunman opens fire in a crowd is for the crowd to collapse on them and take them down and never give them a chance to reload. No shooter would get off more than a few rounds if people were taught to respond in this manner.

You thoughts?

Well if they didn't have a magazine that held more than say 6 or 10 bullets maybe your theory might work.

But that's not reality in America. Here in America a person can have an assault weapon that kills large amounts of people in a matter of a few minutes. Large capacity magazines to ensure they kill a large amount of humans before they have to reload.

Here's a idea. Ban high capacity magazines.

Here's another idea. Ban assault weapons.

If this man had not had access to an assault weapon and high capacity magazine clips, none of this would have happened.

And don't tell me that can't be done. It was done in the 90s. The republicans allowed the ban to expire in the bush boy years and we've had countless mass murders since then.

By the way, democrats tried to ban weapons from terrorists and possible terrorists. The republicans filibustered the bill and killed it.

So when the republicans stop preventing common sense laws from being enacted, THEN I might take you all seriously about terrorism and mass murders.

Right now, you're part of the problem so nothing you all say or do means anything to me.

It would work if they had a hundred round magazine. Now run along with your gun grabbing bullshit.

So you advocate that more people are killed?

That's not very smart.

The logical way to stop all this is to do what has already been tried here and in other nations and has proven to succeed.

Ban high capacity magazines.
Ban assault weapons.

That's not banning ALL guns. It's just taking military style weapons out of the civilian population keeping them where they belong. In the military.

Since it took ELEVEN highly trained police to stop him, what makes you think that untrained people who are partying will?

We didn't have this problem when assault weapons weren't available to the general public. Which was most of the history of our nation. It wasn't until the last 4 or so decades that these weapons were available.

America was just fine. In fact, you people want to return to those days in many ways. Why not in this way?

And how many assault weapons have ever been used in these attacks....care to number all of them.......? Please do.....look up Mother JOnes...the left wing magazine, they collected data on all mass shootings going back to 1982...they are left wing, and anti gun.......look it up and get back to us......

there are 3,750,000 AR-15s in private hands....1 or 2 a year are used to commit crimes.......please..tell us again how they are a problem...get back to us when over a milllion a year are used for crime....

 

[OKTexas]

This may sound counter intuitive but the only way to save lives when a gunman opens fire in a crowd is for the crowd to collapse on them and take them down and never give them a chance to reload. No shooter would get off more than a few rounds if people were taught to respond in this manner.

You thoughts?

During the Fort Hood shooting 3 soldiers charged the muslim terrorist and he shot and either killed or wounded them...then went on shooting.....

This guy was on the phone to 911 several times, and he cleaned up in the bathroom....there were apparently multiple times where someone with a gun could possibly have shot him......but it was a gun free zone.


And to those who talk about drinking and guns.....if you go to a night club and have a gun on you...you don't drink...just like if you are the designated driver...right?

Different situations call for different responses.

 

[Intolerant]

Time to even the score

How about each time there is a terrorist attack, a city in the Middle East gets turned into a radioactive ash tray. Just pick one at random, one rocket is all it would take.

 

[OKTexas]

This may sound counter intuitive but the only way to save lives when a gunman opens fire in a crowd is for the crowd to collapse on them and take them down and never give them a chance to reload. No shooter would get off more than a few rounds if people were taught to respond in this manner.

You thoughts?

Or arm the victims to start with. It was a gun free zone.

In a crowd density like that club it could take too much time to get an angle for a clean shot.

Not when he is on the phone with 911...or coming down a narrow hallway to the office or bathroom where you are hiding....or through the bathroom door....or while he is at the sink cleaning up and you are playing dead on the floor in the bathroom....which some in the club were doing....

Please read the entire thread, I'm talking about actions in the first few seconds, he would have never had the chance to call 911.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

This may sound counter intuitive but the only way to save lives when a gunman opens fire in a crowd is for the crowd to collapse on them and take them down and never give them a chance to reload. No shooter would get off more than a few rounds if people were taught to respond in this manner.

You thoughts?

The theory is sound, but unrealistic in practice. If a whack job opens up on a crowd, they masses will flee and/or cower, unless perhaps if they are all military trained. Nobody wants to be the guy leading the charge because he will eat the first bullet.

 

[Katzndogz]

This may sound counter intuitive but the only way to save lives when a gunman opens fire in a crowd is for the crowd to collapse on them and take them down and never give them a chance to reload. No shooter would get off more than a few rounds if people were taught to respond in this manner.

You thoughts?

Or arm the victims to start with. It was a gun free zone.

In a crowd density like that club it could take too much time to get an angle for a clean shot.

Not when he is on the phone with 911...or coming down a narrow hallway to the office or bathroom where you are hiding....or through the bathroom door....or while he is at the sink cleaning up and you are playing dead on the floor in the bathroom....which some in the club were doing....

Please read the entire thread, I'm talking about actions in the first few seconds, he would have never had the chance to call 911.

In the first few seconds protocol is to deescalate.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Fixing our immigration & visa system is the solution to Muslim terrorists. And yes, I know he wasn't an immigrant but his RADICAL parents were. No parents, no terrorist.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

Given proper military training...

... it might be possible, but...

.. you willin' to be the first to go unarmed...

... up against an AR-15?

If the crowd collapses on the shooter, the few hurried shots he gets off will be less accurate and he can't protect his back and flanks, I'm not saying single individuals should try to take them head on. If 40 rushed him at the same time from all angles he would be down in seconds. If you run, you just give them a clear field of fire where they can take time to aim.

Good luck convincing and coordinating all those people in a matter of seconds, and be prepared to be the first guy in and the first guy dead.

 

[OKTexas]

This may sound counter intuitive but the only way to save lives when a gunman opens fire in a crowd is for the crowd to collapse on them and take them down and never give them a chance to reload. No shooter would get off more than a few rounds if people were taught to respond in this manner.

You thoughts?

The theory is sound, but unrealistic in practice. If a whack job opens up on a crowd, they masses will flee and/or cower, unless perhaps if they are all military trained. Nobody wants to be the guy leading the charge because he will eat the first bullet.

With proper training it could be very realistic, it can't happen over night.

 

[OKTexas]

This may sound counter intuitive but the only way to save lives when a gunman opens fire in a crowd is for the crowd to collapse on them and take them down and never give them a chance to reload. No shooter would get off more than a few rounds if people were taught to respond in this manner.

You thoughts?

Or arm the victims to start with. It was a gun free zone.

In a crowd density like that club it could take too much time to get an angle for a clean shot.

Not when he is on the phone with 911...or coming down a narrow hallway to the office or bathroom where you are hiding....or through the bathroom door....or while he is at the sink cleaning up and you are playing dead on the floor in the bathroom....which some in the club were doing....

Please read the entire thread, I'm talking about actions in the first few seconds, he would have never had the chance to call 911.

In the first few seconds protocol is to deescalate.

Yep, you do that by taking the guy down. Got to go for a bit, but like Arnie, I'll be back.

 

[JOSweetHeart]

This may sound counter intuitive but the only way to save lives when a gunman opens fire in a crowd is for the crowd to collapse on them and take them down and never give them a chance to reload. No shooter would get off more than a few rounds if people were taught to respond in this manner.

You thoughts?

Amen to this. The best way for evil to triumph is for good to stand there and not do a thing.

God bless you always!!!

Holly

 

[charwin95]

In a crowd density like that club it could take too much time to get an angle for a clean shot.

The gunman didn't have any trouble getting an angle. Besides, if enough are armed, one has to be close enough when he enters.

Ok, you keep thinking that, I'm telling you what will work to minimize causalities 100% of the time.

And you're not wrong. It would minimize casualties. So would actually arming the victims, since they'd be able to gun down the lowlife as soon as he enters the building and raises his gun.

Just seeing someone raising a gun in a crowd doesn't justify shooting them, it could be an undercover cop seeing something you don't. You obviously haven't had much training.

Another thing people aren't considering in this particular situation when they said more guns would have helped is that it was obviously a very crowded club. I'm not sure a bunch of untrained people shooting across the club would have made the situation much better. How do you even tell who the bad guy is at that point?

I've mentioned this kind of scenario many many times.
Also gun shooting at university........... Just imagine untrained students running around with guns ............ How would you know who is the bad guy or good guys?