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

[protectionist]

Even the cops were too scared to shoot

Afraid that some liberal loon politicians (thinking about VOTES) would accuse them of being trigger happy. Yup.

It happened in the N. Charleston, SC Michael Slager/Walter Scott shooting.

 

[protectionist]

Was the guy a legal gun owner or not?

 

[2aguy]

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

It doesn't take that long....especially in a place where people are coralled in.....

The key? The sooner you get someone to point a gun at an attacker, the sooner the attack ends and lives are saved.....relying on the police in each case 6 minutes minimum....except Gilroy where they were right there.........

IN Russia, you had a guy with a 5 shot, pump action shotgun kill 20 people and wound 40.....

He killed more than the guys with rifles in Gilroy and in Ohio, and killed the same amount as the guy in El Paso.....and wounded more than the guy in El Paso..

It isn't the gun that is the issue...it is the free time they have in the gun free zone before someone points a gun at them and makes them stop...

What we know? As soon as someone, civilian or police, can shoot back, the killer surrenders, commits suicide, runs away or is injured and killed.....

And it doesn't have to be police...armed citizens at the scene of mass public shootings have a 94% effective rate of stopping them and reducing deaths and injuries..

But the anti-gunners don't care about stopping this...this is just another chance to wade through the blood to use the dead as props in front of democrat press...to call for disarming people who didn't use their legal guns to shoot anyone..

 

[protectionist]

Patrick Crusius was gunning for Hispanics so of course he went to the border. Hispanics were his target.

Topic is self-defense or no self-defense, not Hispanics. Stop race carding.

 

[captkaos]

‘Good guy with a gun’ is a myth.

The miscreant in Dayton was taken out by law enforcement.

‘More guns’ is not the ‘answer.’

More guns in the hands of people who won't allow this type of incident to explode, "is". Most concealed carry holders would probably just shit themselves if someone actually started shooting at them. "Paper" targets do not shoot back. Some would live some would not it's about individual reaction under the highest stress imaginable. I heard a story about a shooting in an elevator where there were 16 shots fired and nobody even got hit. When the shooting starts the only thing that will stop these incidents is deadly force, an act of unselfish bravery in subduing the assailant or they run out of ammo or targets. That's a fact everyone can agree on. Teach your children well!

 

[2aguy]

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

This is only an opinion, but I believe you are naive. For an ordinary civilian shopper, even if armed, it takes a while to figure out what is happening and where it is coming from. Texas is a open carry State and I doubt there were no armed shoppers. However they were mentally geared for WalMart, not Fallujah. I think we're lucky no innocent shopper was killed by a 'good guy with a gun'.

Yeah...actual experience shows you are wrong...

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.

 

[protectionist]

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the courts, and ultimately the Supreme Court – including the meaning of ‘shall not be infringed.’

Firearm regulatory measures that are consistent with Second Amendment case law – measures which have not been invalidated by the Supreme Court – do not ‘infringe’ on the Second Amendment right.

For example, the courts have consistently held that AWBs are indeed Constitutional, the Supreme Court having never struck down an AWB.

Moreover, a military style weapon (or assault weapon) is defined solely by lawmaking bodies, elected officials determine what weapons will be subject to regulation, they alone have that authority.

What gun manufacturers might consider to be a military style weapon (or assault weapon), or what the military might consider to be a military style weapon (or assault weapon), or what private citizens might consider to be military style weapon (or assault weapon) is legally irrelevant, having no bearing on the regulation of such firearms.

Topic is self-defense or no self-defense, not regulation of firearms.

 

[2aguy]

‘Good guy with a gun’ is a myth.

The miscreant in Dayton was taken out by law enforcement.

‘More guns’ is not the ‘answer.’

More guns in the hands of people who won't allow this type of incident to explode, "is". Most concealed carry holders would probably just shit themselves if someone actually started shooting at them. "Paper" targets do not shoot back. Some would live some would not it's about individual reaction under the highest stress imaginable. I heard a story about a shooting in an elevator where there were 16 shots fired and nobody even got hit. When the shooting starts the only thing that will stop these incidents is deadly force, an act of unselfish bravery in subduing the assailant or they run out of ammo or targets. That's a fact everyone can agree on. Teach your children well!

And you are wrong, and don't know the topic...as actual research shows....not the emotional thought process you used.....you are wrong..

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.

 

[Frannie]

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

Because the Democrats took the guns and or are scaring legal gun owners away

This guy was a legal gun owner, wasn't he?

Dude even the cops were afraid to shoot

Wake up

Was the guy a legal gun owner or not?

Dont know I've been in the gym watching the babes jump up and down.

Are you saying that all legal guns need to be made illegal like heroin, fentanyl and cocaine

Because then there would be none

Lol, do the idiots kneeling want the cops to have all the guns?

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

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

These two situations are not similar at all and besides, the average concealed weapon licensee is not trained for an active shooter event.

Something I found very interesting although I cannot currently find the webpage is that the state of Florida used to have posted on their information site for concealed carry that a CCW permit is only a license to carry, not to use your weapon. While this might at first seem to be contradictory, if you think about it makes perfect sense. If is up to the license holder to be intimately familiar with the laws regarding lawful self-defense and defense of another. Furthermore a CCW doesn't grant the license holder police powers which far too many people seem to believe is now their right to try to police other people's behavior. Additionally, CCW holders are trained to avoid confrontation and to remove themselves from violent and escalating situations first and foremost.

The implications of using a deadly weapon to kill someone goes far beyond just surviving a gunfight, there then is the stress and financial cost of the fight to retain your freedom and dealing with the psychological impact of having taken someone's life. There are good reasons for simply focusing on getting yourself and your loved ones out of harms way and there is no one who can fault anyone for doing so.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Because there’s no evidence that the carrying of concealed firearms acts as a ‘deterrent’ to crime:

If it's concealed why would it be?

Now open carry, that's a bit different

 

[Diver Diva]

You just contradicted yourself. As you said, the miscreant in Dayton was taken out by law enforcement, which took more time than if a CCW carrier had been standing nearby.
If that had been the scenario, the miscreant could have been shot dead by the CCW carrier instantly, and LIVES WOULD HAVE BEEN SAVED.
Good guy with a gun has been proven hundreds of times.

Exactly. When seconds count the police are only minutes away.

the state of Florida used to have posted on their information site for concealed carry that a CCW permit is only a license to carry, not to use your weapon.

The legal standard here to use deadly force is that you must have a reasonable fear for your life or serious bodily harm.

 

[Brain357]

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

There was armed security at the Orlando nightclub and it's still our second worst mass shooting in history. I'm not sure if you have noticed but law enforcement is regularly shot and often killed. They are all armed. And of course concealed carry people have tried to stop shooting before and they are dead.
2014 Las Vegas shootings - Wikipedia

 

[Brain357]

Because there’s no evidence that the carrying of concealed firearms acts as a ‘deterrent’ to crime:

If it's concealed why would it be?

Now open carry, that's a bit different

Yes open carry would insure you are the first one shot.

 

[Kilroy2]

A recent article on the shooting.
20 dead in El Paso shopping-complex shooting: Texas governor

Info on shooter
https://primalinformation.com/el-paso-shooter-patrick-crusius-wiki/

The Cielo Vista Mall was well known for banning permitted concealed handguns

This guy picked out a low security site to shoot people. Not only no cops and policemen, but also one where no one was apparently carrying personal arms either.

You cannot prevent shootings everywhere, but you can make your locale not an easy target and so they go elsewhere as this cretin reasoned.

My thoughts and prayers go out to my Catholic brothers and sisters that are suffering from the results of this gun hating Democrat Party's anti gun laws.

I suspect the shooter was also on mental medications of some kind and likely a closet Democrat. He said he was trying to maintain biological diversity in his manifesto.

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.

 

[Coyote]

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?

 

[Coyote]

A recent article on the shooting.
20 dead in El Paso shopping-complex shooting: Texas governor

Info on shooter
Who is Patrick Crusius (El Paso Shooter)? Wiki, Bio, Manifesto, Twitter, Facebook, Ethnicity, El Paso Shooting, Parents, Family and Instagram - Primal Information

The Cielo Vista Mall was well known for banning permitted concealed handguns

This guy picked out a low security site to shoot people. Not only no cops and policemen, but also one where no one was apparently carrying personal arms either.

You cannot prevent shootings everywhere, but you can make your locale not an easy target and so they go elsewhere as this cretin reasoned.

My thoughts and prayers go out to my Catholic brothers and sisters that are suffering from the results of this gun hating Democrat Party's anti gun laws.

I suspect the shooter was also on mental medications of some kind and likely a closet Democrat. He said he was trying to maintain biological diversity in his manifesto.

A closet Democrat huh? Just have to find some way to attach a political party you dislike onto it.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?

Define "military style weapon".

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.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Was it hate that caused us to invade Iraq and the Middle East? No is was because love for our country to keep it safe we killed millions and thousands of Americans died in the process.

If you parse out this statement it sounds completely deranged.

 

[protectionist]

It takes quite some time to fire that many rounds? Are you that naive?

The Dayton Ohio shooter was only shooting for around 1 minute. He killed 9 people and wounded 26. The people in Ohio went from having a good time to running for their lives in 60 seconds. If you are armed it takes time to figure out what the hell is going on. Not to mention, if a CCW holder pulls out a gun, another CCW holder comes around the corner and sees him, does he shoot him?

Plus, how many shooters are there? In 2014 a couple (Jerad & Amanda Miller) shot two police officers in a pizza place and then went to Walmart. Jerad Miller started shooting and ordered shoppers to leave. A CCW holder, Joseph Wilcox, pulled out his Glock and challenged Jerad. Wilcox didn't know the woman he walked by was armed and part of the shooting. Amanda Miller shot Joseph Wilcox. He died on the scene.

Not knowing how many shooters there are, or even what is going on, makes drawing a weapon dangerous. Plus, the Walmart was full of shoppers (I've seen estimates range from 1,000 and up) doing their Back-to-School shopping, which means most of the people were families with kids with them. People ran, which is a smart thing to do.

I am all for private citizens using a gun to stop a shooting. But I am also all for civilians surviving. The armed veteran chose to help get children out of the store rather than shooting it out with the gunman.

He did wrong. By instantly shooting the shooter, he could have protected everyone present (of all ages), and SAVED LIVES.

And the "some time" I was referring to is less than a minute. It only takes a second or two to shoot the killer and stop him, as was done in LAX in 2000 (proven example, among many others I cited earlier). Are YOU naïve ?