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

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Except for this manifesto that was posted on the 8 chan site it would appear that this was a call to his brothers on the far right.

Meh, if the people in the store had anybody allowed to carry concealed, this wouldn't have happened there.

These cowards only go for soft targets. They don't have the balls to go after anyone that can shoot back.

Where are the gun toting folks at? Are you saying that none of the gun carrying folks shop at Wal Mart.

No, I am saying that the mall the Wallmart was located in did not permit concealed carry handguns.

Where's your proof? I have researched a good couple hours and no where can I find they or the mall are gun free zones.

Maybe this will help? It doesn't say that it's applicable to the specific store but it's for the Walmart and it mentions concealed carry. I'm not sure about the mall itself though
https://www.quora.com/What-is-Walmarts-open-carry-gun-policy-in-Texas

 

[Brain357]

Except for this manifesto that was posted on the 8 chan site it would appear that this was a call to his brothers on the far right.

Meh, if the people in the store had anybody allowed to carry concealed, this wouldn't have happened there.

These cowards only go for soft targets. They don't have the balls to go after anyone that can shoot back.

Where are the gun toting folks at? Are you saying that none of the gun carrying folks shop at Wal Mart.

No, I am saying that the mall the Wallmart was located in did not permit concealed carry handguns.

Where's your proof? I have researched a good couple hours and no where can I find they or the mall are gun free zones.

Maybe this will help? It doesn't say that it's applicable to the specific store but it's for the Walmart and it mentions concealed carry. I'm not sure about the mall itself though
https://www.quora.com/What-is-Walmarts-open-carry-gun-policy-in-Texas

There was at least one person with a carry license in the mall. Given it was TX I would imagine there were many.

El Paso shooting witness describes trying to help kids escape as gunman opened fire

 

[WinterBorn]

This is a dumb question, but lets say the police arrive to one of these mass shootings and there are 4 or 5 people shooting weapons. How would they know who to start shooting at?

They would be told by the shoppers there. And told by 911 dispatch.

That is nonsense. Any officer responding to the call would treat any armed person as the perpetrator.

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

If you hit your target. Are you willing to risk the lives of the people running around behind the shooter on you being 100% accurate?

 

[WinterBorn]

if there are many CCW around, then they won't know who the real shooter is, probably
the real shooter can say he's the good guy--like the Norwegian mass murderer
if you come up on the real shooter OR a real good guy, --you have to to kill them
Norway killings: The laughing gunman who shot 85 young victims, one by one

The cops will certainly be advised, from shoppers' 911 calls, a full description of the mass shooter. Cops will know who's who.

No. Standard operating procedure in such a situation is to treat everyone with a gun the same. YOu will be ordered to surrender and shot if you do not do so fast enough. Better hope your hearing recovers from a shootout indoors quickly enough to hear the orders.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

So, everyone on the Left agrees that we are better off as a gun free nation, and that even though history proves armed societies at large are overall safer than unarmed societies in the long run?

And do all leftists agree that we are "safer" if no one is legally armed even though the number of people actually killed in "mass shootings" (while a tragedy) is statistically extremely small?
What will stop illegal arms from slipping across the border?

So this is to say, leftists who agree with the above are certain that government tyranny cannot evolve to the point of endangering millions of people (even though it just occurred in Venezuela) where the population was recently disarmed just before a dictator took over the nation.

LA Times: Venezuela’s raging homicide epidemic is going unrecorded
Op-Ed: Venezuela's raging homicide epidemic is going unrecorded

Most on the Left feel Donald Trump is the next Adolph Hitler.....and yet still scream for disarming American citizens? Does that make sense if they really believe that?

Or do you feel that only "assault weapons" need to be banned and taken? (What happens after that when shooters kill dozens with pistols?)

Is there no one on the left who can coherently and reasonably discuss how being a disarmed population given history and current events makes a society safer when even in Australia and the UK where gun control far exceeds that in the USA, shootings still occur (and are on the rise), knife attacks are a national crisis and robbery and assaults and rape are common?

Will America really be "safer", or is it a false hope? Will gun deaths be replaced by stabbings, clubbings and vehicles used in mass homicide? Will crime overall skyrocket?

Truth is, it is more likely that more deaths and more violence would be the result of disarming America. But few if any on the left dare to think it over.

 

[skye]

 

[flacaltenn]

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.

Don't know if you considered it, but being ARMED has a LOT uses in a chaotic mass shooting.. Instead of playing RAMBO -- you can do like MOST of the armed police do and SAVE lives that you can.. Having a gun with you makes you more likely to be able to defend those you're trying to rescue...

You have a very simplistic view of what the value is to be armed.. Providing safety to a group by being armed is what most officers on scene are doing. Very few have the opportunity to "take the perp down"....

 

[Brain357]

So, everyone on the Left agrees that we are better off as a gun free nation, and that even though history proves armed societies at large are overall safer than unarmed societies in the long run?

And do all leftists agree that we are "safer" if no one is legally armed even though the number of people actually killed in "mass shootings" (while a tragedy) is statistically extremely small?
What will stop illegal arms from slipping across the border?

So this is to say, leftists who agree with the above are certain that government tyranny cannot evolve to the point of endangering millions of people (even though it just occurred in Venezuela) where the population was recently disarmed just before a dictator took over the nation.

Most on the Left feel Donald Trump is the next Adolph Hitler.....and yet still scream for disarming American citizens? Does that make sense if they really believe that?

Or do you feel that only "assault weapons" need to be banned and taken? (What happens after that when shooters kill dozens with pistols?)

Is there no one on the left who can coherently and reasonably discuss how being a disarmed population given history and current events makes a society safer when even in Australia and the UK where gun control far exceeds that in the USA, shootings still occur (and are on the rise), knife attacks are a national crisis and robbery and assaults and rape are common?

Will America really be "safer", or is it a false hope?

We have checks and balances for tyranny. They have suited us quite well.

The UK homicide rate is a small fraction of ours. In fact our homicide rate is 4-5X higher than countries with strong gun control.

 

[Brain357]

I'm confident all that isn't really true. And regardless there are many nations with few guns and few people being killed.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

We have checks and balances for tyranny. They have suited us quite well.

Such as 100,000+ illegals entering the country illegally each month? It is a fallacy to believe things are the same as they were even 20 years ago.

The UK homicide rate is a small fraction of ours. In fact our homicide rate is 4-5X higher than countries with strong gun control.

Let's say what you say is correct.......(it isn't but for the sake of the argument.....)

Name these countries.
Then we'll take an indepth look at their border control, their culture, their "diversity" etc.

 

[Brain357]

We have checks and balances for tyranny. They have suited us quite well.

Such as 100,000+ illegals entering the country illegally each month? It is a fallacy to believe things are the same as they were even 20 years ago.

The UK homicide rate is a small fraction of ours. In fact our homicide rate is 4-5X higher than countries with strong gun control.

Let's say what you say is correct.......(it isn't but for the sake of the argument.....)

Name these countries.
Then we'll take an indepth look at their border control, their culture, their "diversity" etc.

What does illegals have to do with checks and balances?

Of course it is true. UK, Germany, France, Italy, Denmark, Japan... The list is quite long really.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

I'm confident all that isn't really true.

Instead of guessing....research it. You may find it is true after all.

And regardless there are many nations with few guns and few people being killed.

Name them. Then we'll compare their cultures, diversity policies and border policies.

 

[Brain357]

We have checks and balances for tyranny. They have suited us quite well.

Such as 100,000+ illegals entering the country illegally each month? It is a fallacy to believe things are the same as they were even 20 years ago.

The UK homicide rate is a small fraction of ours. In fact our homicide rate is 4-5X higher than countries with strong gun control.

Let's say what you say is correct.......(it isn't but for the sake of the argument.....)

Name these countries.
Then we'll take an indepth look at their border control, their culture, their "diversity" etc.

What does illegals have to do with checks and balances?

Of course it is true. UK, Germany, France, Italy, Denmark, Japan... The list is quite long really.

And even Israel who is practically in a war zone has a homicide rate much lower than ours.

 

[WinterBorn]

but he has you outgunned...
.....what if there is another CCW with a gun--but you don't know he is a good guy--if you don't shoot him, he will kill you if he's the bad guy

You are coming up with very improbable scenarios.

1. As I explained before, if you are close to the shooter, and he is firing a semiautomatic (single shot) rifle, he does NOT have your handgun outgunned.

2. Not quite sure what you're talking about, but you positively ID the bad guy, by having seen him murdering innocent shoppers, and you shoot him QUICKLY. This aint rocket science.

Why is one CCW holder expected to be there (per the OP), but two CCW holders an improbable scenario?

The fact is, it is fairly likely. And, having heard shots and seen people running, the other CCW holder would likely shoot anyone he saw with a gun in his hand.

Also, the idea that a 9mm pistol and a 7.62x39 rifle are the same is laughable.

Both have relatively small bullets. Commonly 115 gr for the 9mm and 125 for the 7.62x39. But that is where the similarity ends. The rifle will have a muzzle velocity of 2365 fps. The pistol will have +/- 1100 fps.

And the huge difference is in the energy. The 9mm, even with +P ammunition, will have only 500 ft lbs of energy. The rifle will 1552 ft lbs of energy. In other words, what ever flimsy display rack you are hiding behind, the rifle bullets will reach you.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

What does illegals have to do with checks and balances?
Of course it is true. UK, Germany, France, Italy, Denmark, Japan... The list is quite long really.

Seriously? You have to ask that?

The court system is being over run and over whelmed handling not only illegals as they cross the border.....but even afterwards, tracking them, filing papers, sending warrant officers..etc etc etc etc....I hope you're kidding.
How can checks and balances work if the system is overwhelmed and mired down in political infighting?

Our system is at a breaking point due to a number of factors but heavily contributing to it is the number of people flooding into the country illegally.

It's a national Crisis the Left denies.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

And even Israel who is practically in a war zone has a homicide rate much lower than ours.

Prove that. You offer nothing to back up the ideas in your head.

 

[JimBowie1958]

This is a dumb question, but lets say the police arrive to one of these mass shootings and there are 4 or 5 people shooting weapons. How would they know who to start shooting at?

They would be told by the shoppers there. And told by 911 dispatch.

That is nonsense. Any officer responding to the call would treat any armed person as the perpetrator.

Any armed civilian should drop his weapon as soon as uniformed peace officers show up in any situation.

 

[WinterBorn]

This is a dumb question, but lets say the police arrive to one of these mass shootings and there are 4 or 5 people shooting weapons. How would they know who to start shooting at?

They would be told by the shoppers there. And told by 911 dispatch.

That is nonsense. Any officer responding to the call would treat any armed person as the perpetrator.

Any armed civilian should drop his weapon as soon as uniformed peace officers show up in any situation.

Excellent advice!

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

Any armed civilian should drop his weapon as soon as uniformed peace officers show up in any situation.

Even when they come knocking to violate the 2nd and confiscate your guns for no reason other than a government edict?

Was this the correct answer in Venezuela where 30,000 or more are now murdered by government forces annually?

I would agree "most" situations.....but not "any". There are also criminals who dress as cops and bad cops.