Why Was No One Armed & Shooting Back In El Paso WalMart ?

[bigrebnc1775]

The El Paso Walmart shooter killed 20 people (so far) and wounded 26 more. He may well have fired some shots missing people also. It's pretty fair to say this nut fired at least 50 shots, and very possibly well more than that.

It takes quite some time to fire that many shots individually, as this guy did, walking aisle to aisle, through the store. If there had been an armed security guard, or any armed citizen with a CCW license, this guy could have (and should have) been stopped cold after the first 2 or 3 shots.

As someone who has a CCW license, and is armed 99% of the time, when I'm walking around outside, it is amazing to me that there could have been that many people walking around unarmed and defenseless. Why? Don't they know something like this could happen at any time ?

In contrast, in 2002, a Muslim terrorist (Hesham Mohamed Hadayet) walked into Los Angeles Airport (LAX) armed with 2 handguns, plus magazines loaded with dozens of bullets. He shot and killed 2 people, and wounded 4. The airport was filled with people. The terrorist was shot dead right on the spot, by a security guard who was armed and ready to deal. Without that good guy with a gun, the airport would have been a bloodbath, just like this WalMart, and probably even worse.

This ARMED DEFENSE is what should have been the case in El Paso. How this guy could pull off what he did without getting shot, by a guard or CCW carrying citizen is mind boggling.

2002 Los Angeles International Airport shooting - Wikipedia

To answer your question the Elpaso area doesn't have that many CCW I counted less than 500
Who's licensed to open carry? The 40 ZIPs in Texas where the most CHL holders live

 

[protectionist]

FOX, no less, interviewed a "good guy with a gun" who was armed and there at the shooting, so it clearly was NOT a gun free zone! Your source is lying, but you don't care because it gives you a way to blame Liberals for what a Trump Nationalist did.

It IS a gunfree zone, and worse than that. it is a weapons free zone (with the posted sign included in the link), which includes everything down to a boy scout knife.

Good link, DD.

 

[protectionist]

Yeah that's what everyone keeps saying. The police are openly armed yet I don't see a bunch of criminals calling open season on law enforcement officers.

Maybe that's because you watch CNN ? MSNBC ? PBS ? You won't '"see" a whole lot of stuff on liberal OMISSION media. Lots of other people see it.

Milwaukee Sheriff: Obama ‘Started This War on Police’

Recent spate of shootings called 'open season' on law enforcement

"Open Season" on Cops? Six Police Officers Killed In Six Days

Just In: 26 Cops Now Dead...Open Season On Cops

https://maggionews.com/md-sheriff-i...rcement-cops-scared-to-death-to-do-their-job/

Sheriff Mike Lewis: ‘It’s Open Season on Law Enforcement Across This Country’

Is It Open Season On Law Enforcement Officers? Civil Complaint Filed Against Bryson City Officials, Indicates Welch Wouldn’t Prosecute Cases

Open season on police officers?

 

[protectionist]

And if everyone in Walmart was wearing body armor, nobody would be hurt

With 330 million guns out there, we should issue 330 million sets of body armor

Dumb post, and off topic as well (on purpose)

 

[protectionist]

Lies are always winners to the lying scum Right.

I would ask what you base that on, if I thought you had an ounce of credibility, but I don't. And you don't.

 

[LilOlLady]

Armed with an assault rifle, your best bet is to run. You do not have time to fight back when you hear the gunshots. Good guy with the guns can only take him down after the shooting. The bullets travel faster than sound. The shooter never announces he is about to shoot.

 

[protectionist]

Yep, that's one of the rules of basic firearm safety

#4 Be sure of your target and what lies beyond it.

You are responsible for everything which a round you shoot comes in contact with. This means another big dose of situational awareness BEFORE you make the decision to shoot! Consider the height of your target and the angle at which you will shoot it. If the round would make an impact through you intended target and impact something other than a bullet safe berm, trap or safe zone then you are obligated not to take the shot. This means never point or fire ar anything you can’t clearly identify as a target or that would be a danger if your bullet strays, ricochets, or over penetrates.
4 Rules of Gun Safety ⋆ A Girl and A Gun​

Everyone already understands that. Nothing new there.

 

[protectionist]

There were guns, it was Texas after all!
None of the "Good Guys with a Gun" ran to the shooting when they heard it, it is Texas after all.

There were no good guys with a gun. They don't shop in gun-free zones.

 

[protectionist]

Concealed carry licensees are granted permission to carry in all areas that are not explicitedly prohibited such as courthouses, federal buldings/property, etc and possibly some state government locations however I'm not sure of the exact restrictions for the state of Texas because I don't have one of their permits.

If the mall or Walmart was designated a "gun free zone" then in all likelihood it is the policy of the property owners and not a law. As such people are free to ignore their policies however if asked to leave and they refuse, then it because a tresspass issue for which they can be arrested.

But if you note, neither the rule against carrying on the property, nor the law against shooting people and murdering them prevented either from occurring.

It didn't stop the perpetrator, but sadly, that dumb rule may have prevented good CCW guys from being there, as well as the protection of dozens of people (20 now dead)

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

You think maybe because it was a bad idea to shoot back in a situation with people running all over like that?

Obviously, I DON'T think it a bad idea to shoot back, since the OP is advocating just that, and wondering why nobody did do that.

Also, in my own gun, I have hollow point bullets, which stay inside the perpetrator's body. Don't go through, and richochet around.

Oh Lord, you're ARMED lol?!?

 

[protectionist]

First off.. You're simply wrong.. I've heard 2 people interviewed that were legally carrying.. One is current "on leave" Army... That one was simply too busy rescuing kids who were in the path... Took about 8 out with him.. That's a good day's work...

There is no "wrong" in a QUESTION >> "Why Was No One Armed & Shooting Back In El Paso WalMart ?"

So now you have the opportunity to attempt to answer that question.

Note: it would have been a better days work, if someone had killed the shooter early on, and thereby SAVE MORE LIVES.

 

[Issa]

The El Paso Walmart shooter killed 20 people (so far) and wounded 26 more. He may well have fired some shots missing people also. It's pretty fair to say this nut fired at least 50 shots, and very possibly well more than that.

It takes quite some time to fire that many shots individually, as this guy did, walking aisle to aisle, through the store. If there had been an armed security guard, or any armed citizen with a CCW license, this guy could have (and should have) been stopped cold after the first 2 or 3 shots.

As someone who has a CCW license, and is armed 99% of the time, when I'm walking around outside, it is amazing to me that there could have been that many people walking around unarmed and defenseless. Why? Don't they know something like this could happen at any time ?

In contrast, in 2002, a Muslim terrorist (Hesham Mohamed Hadayet) walked into Los Angeles Airport (LAX) armed with 2 handguns, plus magazines loaded with dozens of bullets. He shot and killed 2 people, and wounded 4. The airport was filled with people. The terrorist was shot dead right on the spot, by a security guard who was armed and ready to deal. Without that good guy with a gun, the airport would have been a bloodbath, just like this WalMart, and probably even worse.

This ARMED DEFENSE is what should have been the case in El Paso. How this guy could pull off what he did without getting shot, by a guard or CCW carrying citizen is mind boggling.

2002 Los Angeles International Airport shooting - Wikipedia

That incident at lax was at the Israeli ticket counter and he had a beef with the airline his intentions weren't to kill whoever comes in his path...and the Israeli airline ticket counter is always secured with armed personnel.

That been said why dont you join th4 civilised world and stop the blood bath I have been to so many countries where gun deaths or any deaths are rare. Join the 21st century.

 

[protectionist]

Wrong.

Isolated, anecdotal incidents prove nothing.

The fact remains that there is no objective, documented evidence in support of the notion that citizens carrying concealed firearms act as a deterrent to crime or otherwise stop mass shootings.

ABSOLUTELY and STUPIDLY 100% FALSE!
There most certainly is objective, documented evidence in support of the notion that citizens carrying concealed firearms act as a deterrent to crime or otherwise stop mass shootings.

I have already posted some documented evidence, and there need not be "documents" for thIs anyway. Anyone with a brain knows that (as I've ALREADY SAID ABOUT 6 TIMES), one is 100% DETERRED by being DEAD.

The BRAINS in this forum may not get that, but everyone else does.

The sad part is that the BRAINS aren't just being stupid. They are also causing people to GET KILLED by advocating for people to be disarmed in gun-free zones.

 

[protectionist]

To answer your question the Elpaso area doesn't have that many CCW I counted less than 500

Maybe now, more will be. (if they've learned anything)

 

[protectionist]

Armed with an assault rifle, your best bet is to run. You do not have time to fight back when you hear the gunshots. Good guy with the guns can only take him down after the shooting. The bullets travel faster than sound. The shooter never announces he is about to shoot.

He announces it when he starts shooting. And when that shooting goes on for a full minute or more, there is time to stop him before he shoots more people, and thereby SAVE LIVES.

AK 47 is powerful gun but it (the one used) still is only a semiautomatic, and no greater rapid fire than an ordinary semiautomatic handgun. Best bet is to shoot the shooter, if you have the chance. You can even come up from behind him, and shoot him in the back. He may never even see you.

 

[protectionist]

Oh Lord, you're ARMED lol?!?

Correct. And able to defend myself et al. With 2 honorable discharges from the US Army and Army National Guard.

Oh Lord, you're UNarmed ? Well, it's YOUR life. if you choose to gamble with it..... Not my problem.

 

[protectionist]

That incident at lax was at the Israeli ticket counter and he had a beef with the airline his intentions weren't to kill whoever comes in his path...and the Israeli airline ticket counter is always secured with armed personnel.

That been said why dont you join th4 civilised world and stop the blood bath I have been to so many countries where gun deaths or any deaths are rare. Join the 21st century.

1. He was an Islamic TERRORIST as classified by Dept of Homeland Security, his
Motive >> To influence U.S. government policy in favor of the Palestinians

Try reading the link >>

2002 Los Angeles International Airport shooting - Wikipedia

2. Yes they have armed security, as should be everywhere.

3. I'm in the civilized world, what's you problem ?

 

[2aguy]

How do you know no one was armed?

Read the title of the thread. It doesn't say no one was armed. It says "No one Was Armed AND SHOOTING BACK" Get it ?

You think maybe because it was a bad idea to shoot back in a situation with people running all over like that?

And yet when people have shot back in actual mass public shootings, nothing you predicted happened...in actual, real world events....

Armed Citizens Are Successful 94% Of The Time At Active Shooter Events [FBI]

Of all the active shooter events there were 33 at which an armed citizen was present. Of those, Armed Citizens were successful at stopping the Active shooter 75.8% of the time (25 incidents) and were successful in reducing the loss of life in an additional 18.2% (6) of incidents. In only 2 of the 33 incidents (6.1%) was the Armed Citizen(s) not helpful in any way in stopping the active shooter or reducing the loss of life.

Thus the headline of our report that Armed Citizens Are Successful 94% Of The Time At Active Shooter Events.


In the 2 incidents at which the armed citizen “failed” to stop or slow the active shooter, one is the previously mentioned incident with hunters. The other is an incident in which the CCWer was shot in the back in a Las Vegas Walmart when he failed to identify that there were 2 Active Shooters involved in the attack. He neglected to identify the one that shot him in the back while he was trying to ambush the other perpetrator.

We also decided to look at the breakdown of events that took place in gun free zones and the relative death toll from events in gun free zones vs non-gun-free zones.

Of the 283 incidents in our data pool, we were unable to identify if the event took place in a gun-free zone in a large number (41%) of the events. Most of the events took place at a business, church, home, or other places at which as a rule of law it is not a gun free zone but potentially could have been declared one by the property owner. Without any information in the FBI study or any indication one way or the other from the news reports, we have indicated that event with a question mark.

If you look at all of the Active Shooter events (pie chart on the top) you see that for those which we have the information, almost twice as many took place in gun free zones than not; but realistically the vast majority of those for which we have no information (indicated as ?) are probably NOT gun free zones.

If you isolate just the events at which 8 or more people were killed the data paints a different picture (pie chart on the bottom). In these incidents, 77.8% took place in a gun-free zone suggesting that gun free zones lead to a higher death rate vs active shooter events in general

=====

One of the final metrics we thought was important to consider is the potential tendency for armed citizens to injure or kill innocent people in their attempt to “save the day.” A common point in political discussions is to point out the lack of training of most armed citizens and the decrease in safety inherent in their presence during violent encounters.

As you can see below, however, at the 33 incidents at which Armed Citizens were present, there were zero situations at which the Armed Citizen injured or killed an innocent person. It never happened.

 

[2aguy]

Where in the Constitution does it say you have a right to own a AK47, AR15, M16, etc.

The Constitution doesn't tell the people what they can and can't do.

It tells the government what it can and can't do.

So does it tell the Gov't it can't ban assault rifles?

Yes. It does.

Obviously not since it has been done before.

That wasn't the Constitution. That was the SCOTUS's interpretation of what the Constitution says.

Wrong...try reading Heller, they go through the history and legal statutes from England, the Colonies and the early states...nothing you posted is accurate or true.

 

[2aguy]

How do you know no one was armed?

Read the title of the thread. It doesn't say no one was armed. It says "No one Was Armed AND SHOOTING BACK" Get it ?

You think maybe because it was a bad idea to shoot back in a situation with people running all over like that?

Actually, just pointing a gun at some of these guys gets them to stop.....

Armed Citizens Are Successful 94% Of The Time At Active Shooter Events [FBI]

Of all the active shooter events there were 33 at which an armed citizen was present. Of those, Armed Citizens were successful at stopping the Active shooter 75.8% of the time (25 incidents) and were successful in reducing the loss of life in an additional 18.2% (6) of incidents. In only 2 of the 33 incidents (6.1%) was the Armed Citizen(s) not helpful in any way in stopping the active shooter or reducing the loss of life.

Thus the headline of our report that Armed Citizens Are Successful 94% Of The Time At Active Shooter Events.


In the 2 incidents at which the armed citizen “failed” to stop or slow the active shooter, one is the previously mentioned incident with hunters. The other is an incident in which the CCWer was shot in the back in a Las Vegas Walmart when he failed to identify that there were 2 Active Shooters involved in the attack. He neglected to identify the one that shot him in the back while he was trying to ambush the other perpetrator.

We also decided to look at the breakdown of events that took place in gun free zones and the relative death toll from events in gun free zones vs non-gun-free zones.

Of the 283 incidents in our data pool, we were unable to identify if the event took place in a gun-free zone in a large number (41%) of the events. Most of the events took place at a business, church, home, or other places at which as a rule of law it is not a gun free zone but potentially could have been declared one by the property owner. Without any information in the FBI study or any indication one way or the other from the news reports, we have indicated that event with a question mark.

If you look at all of the Active Shooter events (pie chart on the top) you see that for those which we have the information, almost twice as many took place in gun free zones than not; but realistically the vast majority of those for which we have no information (indicated as ?) are probably NOT gun free zones.

If you isolate just the events at which 8 or more people were killed the data paints a different picture (pie chart on the bottom). In these incidents, 77.8% took place in a gun-free zone suggesting that gun free zones lead to a higher death rate vs active shooter events in general

=====

One of the final metrics we thought was important to consider is the potential tendency for armed citizens to injure or kill innocent people in their attempt to “save the day.” A common point in political discussions is to point out the lack of training of most armed citizens and the decrease in safety inherent in their presence during violent encounters.

As you can see below, however, at the 33 incidents at which Armed Citizens were present, there were zero situations at which the Armed Citizen injured or killed an innocent person. It never happened.