Shooting at Trolley Square

[asdf]

KSL News) There's just been a shooting at the Trolley Square mall.

Multiple gun shots have been fired inside the mall and outside in the parking garage.

Salt Lake police are at the scene.

Several witnesses heard multiple gunshots.

Initial reports indicated at least five people are down in various areas of the mall, including the Hard Rock Caf

[DiscGo]

It really is sad how common these types of events have become in our country (those this does seem fairly new to Utah). I can already here myself referring to my childhood as the good ol' days.

It really is scary that you never know who is going to flip out like this. Most people who frequent this site often have probably been offended by some one's ignorant comment or opposing view. It is sickening that you almost HAVE to worry now a days that you don't say the wrong thing to the wrong person.

I say we make a UUTAH pact never to hurt each other.

[stefan]

yup, salt lake is losing its innocence. it desires to grow in size and increase its population, but with that come crime and problems. :ne_nau:

sad news to be sure

[DiscGo]

I am originally from L.A. so I know that it is all about perspective... but even Provo/Orem seem big now. When I moved to Provo it was slightly larger than Heber is now. I miss the times that we could leave our doors unlocked here and just feel safe.

[DirkHammergate]

Three friends called me to see if it was me. What the ****?

[Iceaxe]

Three friends called me to see if it was me. What the f***?

Look at the bright side.... ya got three friends :2thumbs:

[Sombeech]

I tuned in just in time to hear Rocky say we need to look into curbing guns. :roll:

If more people had guns, the shooter wouldn't have gotten as far.

[donny h]

It's sounding like the shooter was brought down by an off-duty cop, good thing that in Utah they are allowed to carry while off-duty, some of those eastern cities that Rocky wishes to emulate are trying to ban that practice.

[stefan]

I tuned in just in time to hear Rocky say we need to look into curbing guns. :roll:

If more people had guns, the shooter wouldn't have gotten as far.

oh my, don't go there. this statement is so darn problematic. off duty cops are one thing, but the general public? this isn't the wild west

[Sombeech]

this isn't the wild west

I wish it weren't either. I wish these psychos didn't make me want to carry my gun everywhere I went.

I wish...

[Glockguy]

Reason #394 to get a CCP.

[scoutabout]

I tuned in just in time to hear Rocky say we need to look into curbing guns. :roll:

If more people had guns, the shooter wouldn't have gotten as far.

oh my, don't go there. this statement is so darn problematic. off duty cops are one thing, but the general public? this isn't the wild west

What if someone with a CCP was carrying and could have taken him out after his first shot? 5 lives would have been saved. Think of it that way instead of automatically going for the rootin-tootin-wild-and-shootin stereotype crap.

[DiscGo]

I think one of the biggest problems with gun control is that those who are willing to obey the laws and surrender their guns aren't the people who are going to use them improperly.

I really think that you can only take guns away from people who aren't really a threat. Gangs are not going to stop using guns. The People who create problems with guns already are disregarding the laws.

[shagster]

I tuned in just in time to hear Rocky say we need to look into curbing guns. :roll:

If more people had guns, the shooter wouldn't have gotten as far.

oh my, don't go there. this statement is so darn problematic. off duty cops are one thing, but the general public? this isn't the wild west

What if someone with a CCP was carrying and could have taken him out after his first shot? 5 lives would have been saved. Think of it that way instead of automatically going for the rootin-tootin-wild-and-shootin stereotype crap.

Thanks scoutabout I totally agree. This makes me want to carry everywhere I go. What gets into the minds of these Psychos anyways? I am supposed to head down to SLC tomorrow, you better believe I will be packing.....

[DiscGo]

My brother said that since he got his concealed weapons permit he hasn't gotten a ticket. Every time he has been pulled over (both times :haha:) the policemen talk to him about his gun instead of speeding.

[DirkHammergate]

I tuned in just in time to hear Rocky say we need to look into curbing guns. :roll:

If more people had guns, the shooter wouldn't have gotten as far.

oh my, don't go there. this statement is so darn problematic. off duty cops are one thing, but the general public? this isn't the wild west

I have no problem with the phrase "Guns kill people and people Do". I also realize these guns don't go off on their own. This is a problem with no easy solution. Anytime you have a crazy person with realitively easy access to weapons that kill you have a risk of something like this happening. You can insert "crazy person" with criminal and have the same receipe for disaster. In general I think the proliferation of handguns in the country is a bad thing, I have no answer how to fix it. You live with the risk.

[DirkHammergate]

I'm also very sorry to hear about the people who lost their lives there.

[shlingdawg]

I think trench coats should be banned. People that wear them are never up to any good. :blahblah:

If someone has intent to do harm; they will mostly succeed. Gun control is a farse, there are too many of them out there are they are too easy to get (legally or illegally).

So what? We take his gun away and make him go Jihad on us? Strapping a homemade Iraqi-type bomb to his ass and walking in to Trolley and taking out dozens?

There isn't a solution. Just try to kill him before he kills you.

Even the odds. Pack.

[JP]

Utah they are allowed to carry while off-duty, some of those eastern cities that Rocky wishes to emulate are trying to ban that practice.
I have never heard of a cop that couldn't carry a weapon off-duty. I'd like to see what cities you are referring to. Plus, Bush passed a law awhile back that allows a cop to carry a gun in any state, no matter where he is employed.

[DirkHammergate]

I think trench coats should be banned. People that wear them are never up to any good. :blahblah:

If someone has intent to do harm; they will mostly succeed. Gun control is a farse, there are too many of them out there are they are too easy to get (legally or illegally).

So what? We take his gun away and make him go Jihad on us? Strapping a homemade Iraqi-type bomb to his ass and walking in to Trolley and taking out dozens?

There isn't a solution. Just try to kill him before he kills you.

Even the odds. Pack.

I'll agree gun control isn't gonna happen here in the US, we're a rights driven society that has side effects. What I will debate is the idea that if you Pack you some how level the odds. This psycho had five people down and countless others wounded in about 15 to 20 minutes. People panicing everywhere, running, in shock. How is a regular civilian with a concelled weapons permit going to be able to level the odds at a moments notice, make a decision and actually take the psycho out? I just don't think it would make any difference if you were Packing or not before the police got there.

[JP]

I just don't think it would make any difference if you were Packing or not before the police got there.
Sure it might, it depends on who is packing and when it comes down to flight or fight, some have the ability to fight. Not everyone can take a life, but there are some with the mentality that will have the drive to have dinner that night. There are some people that carry that would have no problem in assessing the situation and reacting accordingly.

[DirkHammergate]

I just don't think it would make any difference if you were Packing or not before the police got there.
Sure it might, it depends on who is packing and when it comes down to flight or fight, some have the ability to fight. Not everyone can take a life, but there are some with the mentality that will have the drive to have dinner that night. There are some people that carry that would have no problem in assessing the situation and reacting accordingly.

I'd certainly like to see some empirical evidence to suggest that a concealed carry permit did the trick in instances like this. Across the nation you'd think you would hear more about a person that "took him out" in this fashion. You just don't hear about it because generally police reaction is fast and its so freaking chaotic. No one has given me evidence that Packing results in taking out the crazy psycho. Believe me I wish someone would have blasted him.

[DiscGo]

Have you guys ever seen the movie "The American President"? It really bothers me at the end with the President (Michael Douglas) gives a big speech about how great the ACLU is and every American should belong to an organization that protects our rights, and then the next paragraph is about taking guns off the street. How are you going to swear to protect our rights and take away the 2nd amendment in the same speech?

[Alex]

I am sure out of the thousands of people (as media puts it) there were plenty of CCPs in there and everyone ran for help. CCP is good at the gun range or show it off before friends, when it comes to death/life situation facing a mindless cold blooded killer with a shotgun, you'd just pee your pants.

CCP teaches you how to shoot a gun, how to reload, how to draw and boost your manliness. But when it comes to actually taking someone's life, the human instincts kick in to flee.

Even trained soldiers in Iraq, who are brainwashed into taking others' lives, are hesitant of pulling the triggers.

[shlingdawg]

People were looking over the balcony watching him shoot people. I would hope that if someone had a weapon would have used it.

I don't know how I would react and I hope that I never have to be in the situation to find out. However, if I am with my family and they are in danger, I hope that I have the backbone or composure to do something about it. If that means taking a bullet for one of them or shelling them out to protect them.

They say that when a police officer is being fired upon and draws his weapon to fire back, the first 2-3 shots are in the ground. He starts pulling the trigger before he even gets on target. I agree that adrenaline, lack of experience and many other factors are not going to make me the prime protector, but something is far better than nothing.

I would rather carry a weapon for 50 years and never have to use it, than not carry it and wish I had it one day. While me carrying a gun may not make the odds even or fair, it makes me feel much better when I have it on my hip.

Don't go to a gun fight armed with a knife (or nothing at all).

[DirkHammergate]

Have you guys ever seen the movie "The American President"? It really bothers me at the end with the President (Michael Douglas) gives a big speech about how great the ACLU is and every American should belong to an organization that protects our rights, and then the next paragraph is about taking guns off the street. How are you going to swear to protect our rights and take away the 2nd amendment in the same speech?

You can't.

[DirkHammergate]

People were looking over the balcony watching him shoot people. I would hope that if someone had a weapon would have used it.

I don't know how I would react and I hope that I never have to be in the situation to find out. However, if I am with my family and they are in danger, I hope that I have the backbone or composure to do something about it. If that means taking a bullet for one of them or shelling them out to protect them.

They say that when a police officer is being fired upon and draws his weapon to fire back, the first 2-3 shots are in the ground. He starts pulling the trigger before he even gets on target. I agree that adrenaline, lack of experience and many other factors are not going to make me the prime protector, but something is far better than nothing.

I would rather carry a weapon for 50 years and never have to use it, than not carry it and wish I had it one day. While me carrying a gun may not make the odds even or fair, it makes me feel much better when I have it on my hip.

Don't go to a gun fight armed with a knife (or nothing at all).

I don't want to know how I'd react either, a couple of times I've felt like my family was in danger and I reacted quickly to protect them. I'm sure everyone regardless of how they feel on a message board would do what they felt was right to protect the ones they loved whatever it may be. Here is hoping this doesn't happen again.

[Alex]

Here is hoping this doesn't happen again.

Amen to that! :cheers: :friday:

[stefan]

i hesitated to post this, as i am not sure we really need a gun debate to arise



What if someone with a CCP was carrying and could have taken him out after his first shot? 5 lives would have been saved. Think of it that way instead of automatically going for the rootin-tootin-wild-and-shootin stereotype crap.

take your stereotyping crap and shove it, scout. i just don't believe in the idea of all yall having weapons and under lesser extreme circumstances using them at your discretion, no matter how controled that might be. i don't think we need a self-determined militia making decisions about when it's appropriate to use a weapon in public.

there is not a single person on this forum that can make a convincing argument that more guns will not lead to more violence (intentional and unintentional), because it's crap and simply not the truth.

if you think this is sensational language then i think you might be looking at the world a little too idealistically. i can look at this situation all i want, it still won't convince me, since i can find plenty other situations where it turned out bad.

and scout, FYI ... the wild west comment was dramatic caricature about folks carrying guns and using them at their own discretion ... not rootin' tootin'.



Have you guys ever seen the movie "The American President"? It really bothers me at the end with the President (Michael Douglas) gives a big speech about how great the ACLU is and every American should belong to an organization that protects our rights, and then the next paragraph is about taking guns off the street. How are you going to swear to protect our rights and take away the 2nd amendment in the same speech?

so you believe in the loose interpretation of the 2nd amendment, eh?

[rockgremlin]

I think trench coats should be banned. People that wear them are never up to any good. :blahblah:



Oh my gosh...too funny! :roflol: I agree, ban trench-coats! Six people would still be alive today if that joker wasn't allowed to wear a trenchcoat!

[Udink]

there is not a single person on this forum that can make a convincing argument that more guns will not lead to more violence (intentional and unintentional), because it's crap and simply not the truth.
Considering that nobody stated otherwise, it sounds to me as though you're just blowing a lot of hot air. I think it's pretty obvious that the greater availability of guns equals more criminals with guns. However, outlawing guns will not reduce that availability to zero. Criminals will still have guns no matter what, and since the government cannot protect each individual citizen from those criminals, the least they can do is give people the opportunity to protect themselves. For a completely defenseless individual, I'm sure dialing 911 after they've been shot by a criminal is perfectly acceptable. For me, however, I'd prefer to have a chance to defend myself.

[rockgremlin]

Considering that nobody stated otherwise, it sounds to me as though you're just blowing a lot of hot air. I think it's pretty obvious that the greater availability of guns equals more criminals with guns. However, outlawing guns will not reduce that availability to zero. Criminals will still have guns no matter what, and since the government cannot protect each individual citizen from those criminals, the least they can do is give people the opportunity to protect themselves. For a completely defenseless individual, I'm sure dialing 911 after they've been shot by a criminal is perfectly acceptable. For me, however, I'd prefer to have a chance to defend myself.

Wow! That's probably the most practical and reasonable post so far in this thread.

[DirkHammergate]

there is not a single person on this forum that can make a convincing argument that more guns will not lead to more violence (intentional and unintentional), because it's crap and simply not the truth.
Considering that nobody stated otherwise, it sounds to me as though you're just blowing a lot of hot air. I think it's pretty obvious that the greater availability of guns equals more criminals with guns. However, outlawing guns will not reduce that availability to zero. Criminals will still have guns no matter what, and since the government cannot protect each individual citizen from those criminals, the least they can do is give people the opportunity to protect themselves. For a completely defenseless individual, I'm sure dialing 911 after they've been shot by a criminal is perfectly acceptable. For me, however, I'd prefer to have a chance to defend myself.

Yea, my argument is that we have certain accepted laws some segments of our population will vehemently disagree with, we may not like them but they are part of a free society. I hate the idea of abortion as birth control but like it or not it is an accepted law of the land. This is probably a simplification but free and open societies have a underbellies, this goes with the territory.

[DirkHammergate]

Wow! That's probably the most practical and reasonable post so far in this thread.

Did you read my latest? Screw you Rock...

[rockgremlin]

Wow! That's probably the most practical and reasonable post so far in this thread.

Did you read my latest? Screw you Rock...

:lol8: I only said that to spite you.

[DirkHammergate]

:lol8: I only said that to spite you.

You lost my vote.

[accadacca]

My condolences go out to all involved and especially those who had family members hurt of killed. Truly a sad day in Salt Lake City.

[JP]

Across the nation you'd think you would hear more about a person that "took him out" in this fashion. You just don't hear about it
It happens more times than you think. The news, that's funny. What they consider news is innocence lost, not criminal lost. If you search the Net, you can find cases that involved armed civilians ending the criminals advances.

Little News You Were Asking About (http://www.sierratimes.com/02/04/24/ar-waters.htm)


i hesitated to post this, as i am not sure we really need a gun debate to arise

i don't think we need a self-determined militia making decisions about when it's appropriate to use a weapon in public.

there is not a single person on this forum that can make a convincing argument that more guns will not lead to more violence (intentional and unintentional), because it's crap and simply not the truth.

if you think this is sensational language then i think you might be looking at the world a little too idealistically. i can look at this situation all i want, it still won't convince me, since i can find plenty other situations where it turned out bad.

so you believe in the loose interpretation of the 2nd amendment, eh?
I

[Iceaxe]

As far as gun control goes I want the right to protect myself and my family.

The 5 dead from last night are proof that the cops or government can't protect you.

Gun control is being able to hit your target.

:2gun:

[DirkHammergate]

From the Desnews:

Police received the first 911 call from the mall at 6:44 p.m. Monday. The first officer was on the scene at 6:47 and could hear gunshots coming from inside the mall, Snyder said.

Three minutes....

[JP]

From the Desnews:

Police received the first 911 call from the mall at 6:44 p.m. Monday. The first officer was on the scene at 6:47 and could hear gunshots coming from inside the mall, Snyder said.

Three minutes....
Three minutes is pretty damn good. How fast does it take to pull a trigger? A lot less than three minutes. How long does it take to get around the mall? A lot more than three minutes.

[stefan]

I think it's pretty obvious that the greater availability of guns equals more criminals with guns. However, outlawing guns will not reduce that availability to zero. Criminals will still have guns no matter what, and since the government cannot protect each individual citizen from those criminals, the least they can do is give people the opportunity to protect themselves. For a completely defenseless individual, I'm sure dialing 911 after they've been shot by a criminal is perfectly acceptable. For me, however, I'd prefer to have a chance to defend myself.
well, it just leads to the natural interpretation that, correct me if i am wrong, you are willing to increase the rate of violence in the interest of protecting yourself.
[quote=jp]I

[JP]

well, it just leads to the natural interpretation that, correct me if i am wrong, you are willing to increase the rate of violence in the interest of protecting yourself.

not this kind of debate!

it's not the laws that i worry about

sure ... but there is a trade off with the increase in violence due to the prevalence of guns in this country ... the double-edged sword

yeah, and everyone knows and abides by the law, riiiight ... again, not what i am worried about!

and to the rest of what you said, yes at the moment it'll be hard to get out of the major gun violence RUT this country is in, but the prevalence of guns in this country is the reason for the prevalence of gun violence. plain and simple.
So where is your evidence of an increase in violence? If you do get it I know where it

[Sombeech]

Watch out for the copycat murders.

I won't be surprised when another mall has a shooting spree within a month.

I'll let you people decide if you want to defend yourselves. I've made my decision.

[shanehadman]

I won't be surprised when another mall has a shooting spree within a month.

I'll let you people decide if you want to defend yourselves. I've made my decision.

I agree.... we need more Concealed Weapon Permits to protect our Malls!!!

[jumar]

I used to joke that no one seems to mind when cops carry guns, so I should just go to police academy so people will be okay with me having a gun. LOL I didn't end up going to police academy, but I've been seeking good training.

If any of you are looking for some good training, I highly recommend Front Sight, outside of Vegas. My wife and I took the 2-day defensive hand gun course. It was awesome!! My wife especially got a lot of benefit from it. She went from being afraid to shoot a handgun, to being quite proficient at shooting, clearing malfunctions, tactical reloads etc in just two days.
It's expensive training ($1k for the 2-day), but you can find certificates on ebay usually for pretty cheap. I paid $60 to take the course. A lot of cops get training here. Very top notch.

[JP]

I've made my decision.
:nod:

[shlingdawg]

but the prevalence of guns in this country is the reason for the prevalence of gun violence. plain and simple.

Wow, did you come up with this all by yourself? :hail2thechief:

So - the prevalence of penises in this country is the reason for the prevalence of rape. plain and simple


Casterate the nation - no more rapes!!!!!

Stefen = Caption Obvious :ne_nau:

[Sombeech]

Casterate the nation - no more rapes!!!!!

:roflol:

[scoutabout]

i don't think we need a self-determined militia making decisions about when it's appropriate to use a weapon in public.

Part of the CCP training explains in great detail under what circumstances you can or cannot use your weapon (at least in TX, don't know about UT, but I would assume the same). Stop stating your opinion as fact.


there is not a single person on this forum that can make a convincing argument that more guns will not lead to more violence (intentional and unintentional), because it's crap and simply not the truth.

Look at Canada. More guns per capita than almost any country. Far less crime than most. Look at England. Guns were "outlawed" and crime increased.



if you think this is sensational language then i think you might be looking at the world a little too idealistically.


That's one of the funniest things I've heard in a while. YOU calling someone else idealistic? :roflol:



i can look at this situation all i want, it still won't convince me, since i can find plenty other situations where it turned out bad.


Thank goodness we're not counting on you and your ACLU buddies to protect our freedom.



so you believe in the loose interpretation of the 2nd amendment, eh?

I certainly do. As Moe from the Simpson's once said, "Guns are for keepin' the King of England outta your face." Think about that for a minute. Throw away the idea of reducing crime, and look at the larger picture. What government fears an unarmed citizenry?

[Scott Card]

Is it never appropriate to defend yourself or do I have to run away every time? To not defend yourself flies in the face of reason, history, and self-preservation. Absolute ban on guns seems to imply that it is never appropriate to fight or defend oneself or others. I can't accept that. Fight or flight is situational. I would like both options in what ever situation I am in. I am not trigger happy nor do I even have a concealed weapon permit (although this event may have just tipped me over the edge to go get one) It really is a foregone conclusion that criminals will have guns or knives or some weapon to do their destruction. Whether it be a club or a gun, I want the ability to defend myself if need be and the situation is right. I like to think of myself as capable of pulling the trigger if my life or my families life were in jeopardy. I don't need a tank, I don't desire a grenade launcher or heavy military stuff, that is what the military is for. The need is not present here in the US for heavy artillery. Now if I were in Iraq..... Point being, I want the option, as others have stated, to fight or flight. You remove that right, you remove half of the option, unless you are really good with a sling or throwing knife. Wild West?? Naw.. Simple self protection by reasonable and responsible adults against idiots.

[shagster]

I've made my decision.
:nod:
I couldn't agree more :2thumbs:

[moabfool]

Yah, they're trite, but bumper stickers say it best:

9mm is faster than 9-1-1

Gun control is hitting what you aim at

When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns

Fear the government that fears your gun

Protected by Smith & Wesson

China has gun control

The west wasn't won with a registered gun

[basilone0331]

Yah, they're trite, but bumper stickers say it best:

9mm is faster than 9-1-1

Gun control is hitting what you aim at

When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns

Fear the government that fears your gun

Protected by Smith & Wesson

China has gun control

The west wasn't won with a registered gun
My favorite: When every second counts, the police are only minutes away

[DiscGo]

I really enjoyed scoutabout's post.

I also liked MoabFool's bumper stickers.

[Joe Gardner]

Heather and I were a block away when it all went down. We watched as dozens of police, firetrucks and EMT's streamed into the area around Trolly Square.

My condolences to the friends and family of the dead. I hope the injured make a full recovery.

[Scott P]

Look at Canada. More guns per capita than almost any country. Far less crime than most.

Where is the source that says this? All sources I can find contradict what you state, but I would be interested is seeing your source.

Here are some:

http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/011218/d011218b.htm

Gun stats:

One of the most common explanations of the higher violent crime rate in the United States are guns. Gun crimes are far more common in the United States. Only one third of Canadian murders involve firearms compared to two thirds in the States. Guns are more likely to be used in robberies in the United States. Overall gun ownership rates are significantly higher in the United States 41% of households vs. 26% in Canada, and even to greater extent, handguns. Most Canadian weapons are rifles or shotguns owned by rural property owners, hunters and target shooters, and are less likely to be used in crimes. More types of weapons are banned or restricted in Canada than the United States. The two biggest provinces, Ontario and Quebec have had a long history of strict gun controls.

In drawing a comparison to the United States in the area of gun restrictions with respect to violent crime, it is important to consider that the strictness of gun controls varies widely across the nation, from Alaska and Vermont with virtually no gun controls at all, to Washington DC[7] and New York City, with among the most severe gun laws in North America. Vermont and Alaska, and other states with similarly few restrictions on the ownership and carry of defensive firearms, routinely post the lowest violent crime numbers in the US[9], significantly lower than Canada as a whole.

Canada has effectively no legal concealed carry of handguns for self-defense, whereas forty five U.S. states have such a provision. Defensive use of firearms is much more common in the United States than in Canada.

Canada has more guns and fewer controls on them than most nations in Western Europe (exceptions being Finland, Norway and Switzerland which have compartively less restrictions) or Japan.

Crime Rate:

Compared to the United States Canada has a lower rate of murder and assault, but a higher rate of rape. The Seventh United Nations Survey of Crime Trends and Operations of Criminal Justice Systems, covering the period 1998 - 2000 Shows Canada's rate of rape per capita was 0.733089 per 1,000 people compared to the United States 0.301318 per 1,000 people. However the definition of rape differs in the two countries, as Canada's rate includes the broader defined Sexual Assault making an accurate comparison difficult. The United States rate for aggravated assault was double the Canadian rate. The rate for robberies was 65% higher in the US.

Rates of property crime are more comparable with higher rates of motor vehicle and bicycle theft in Canada and similar rates of shoplifting. Canada also has a higher rate of arson. Some of this may be connected to Canadians being more likely to report property crimes to police than Americans. A 1995 survey by the International Crime Victim Survey found the gap between the countries shrank when the population was directly surveyed about their experiences.

The United States has about triple the per capita number of arrests for drug related crimes. Actual rates of drug use are quite similar however, but in the United States far more law enforcement resources are dedicated to the war on drugs and police often lay drug charges in the US for minor cannabis possession whereas Canadian police would not in the same circumstance.

In recent years the gap between in crime rates between the United States and Canada has been narrowing, with the Canadian rates more or less holding steady except for minor annual fluctuations while the US rate has continued to drop for over a decade. The current US murder rate is 2.5 times that of Canada per capita, this is down from about 3.5 times as high during the early 1990's. Approximately 70% of the total murders in the US are commited with firearms, which is roughly double the percentage of Canada. The US has more than 5 times the rate of firearm murders than Canada.

Canada's crime rate is close to the averages in Western Europe or Australia but with differences. Property Crime is lower than in some nations (ie. United Kingdom, Sweden), and significantly lower than Australia but higher than in others (ie. Spain, France). The violent crime rate (ie., murder, weapons offences and rape) is higher than most western european nations, in some cases more than double. Canada has several times more violent crime per capita than the safest nations such as Japan, Sweden, Yemen or Switzerland but substainally (many times less) than countires with very high violent crime rates such as Russia, Mexico, Colombia or South Africa.

I'm not taking sides on the gun issue, but I'm wondering what your source is for the following:

Canada has,

1. More guns per capita than almost any country.

2. Far less crime than most.

Where do these two statements/statistics come from? :ne_nau:

All sources I can find refute the above.

http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/Cda-US.htm

http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/international.html#access

Many more....

I've also tried to find the statements on NRA and other pro-gun sites, without luck.

Can you show us a source backing up your claim on the two points above? I'm not saying there isn't one, I am just interested to see it.

[James_B_Wads2000]

So - the prevalence of penises in this country is the reason for the prevalence of rape. plain and simple


Casterate the nation - no more rapes!!!!!

Ah Shlingdawg, I think we need to sit down and have a little chat. Maybe your daddy missed this when he was teaching you about the birds and the bees. But penises can be used in not-rape situations, this is called

[RugerShooter]

I tuned in just in time to hear Rocky say we need to look into curbing guns. :roll:

If more people had guns, the shooter wouldn't have gotten as far.

oh my, don't go there. this statement is so darn problematic. off duty cops are one thing, but the general public? this isn't the wild west

What if someone with a CCP was carrying and could have taken him out after his first shot? 5 lives would have been saved. Think of it that way instead of automatically going for the rootin-tootin-wild-and-shootin stereotype crap.

I heard at work today that the reason there were no CCP carriers with guns in the mall is that they don't allow you to carry a gun on you even if you have your CCP. If this is true and there was a CCP that could have made a clean shot I think that the families of those who passed away should sue the mall for not allowing you to pack heat. Like we all should be able to do if we want.

[DiscGo]

I really do not think the mall should be sued. I don't know what it is about our country that people think that suing is the answer to everything. It seems like if guns were allowed they would be sued for that too (catch 22).

I do think that if you have a concealed weapons permit, you should be able to carrier a weapon. I really appreciate the right to bare arms as stated in the 2nd amendment. I think not allowing felons to have guns is a good start for keeping the guns away from the bad guys, but I wish more could be done. As I stated before the law abiding citizens who would turn in their guns if asked to do so, are not the people we worry about having guns. It is the people who disregard the laws that we are scared of, and I would like to know that there are people with guns to keep them in check.

[scoutabout]

Where is the source that says this? All sources I can find contradict what you state, but I would be interested is seeing your source.



I'll admit, I was basing this on two things. The first being an article I read a couple years ago, and the other being Michael Moore's movie, "Bowling for Columbine." That's what I get for trusting a liberal whacko.

I'm glad you had the time to research all that.

Still, the facts about England aren't in dispute, and there's no evidence that gun control reduces crime. Go research that, and let us know what you find.

[shlingdawg]

oh and I know guns can be used for non-murding purposes

My point exactly.

[Glockguy]

Is it never appropriate to defend yourself or do I have to run away every time?

This is an important question and deserves some thought.

Now if my mom was there shopping the day of the tragedy, I would hope and expect that she find herself a good hiding spot (Freezer, Backroom etc), draw her weapon, and fire at any the threat if it came through the door. It is important to note that despite what hollywood would have you believe, one does not put their finger on the trigger unless you are going to actually fire.

If I was there by myself I would hope that my training would give me the confidence and ability to seek out the threat and stop the threat.

If I was there with my family I would get them to what I felt was a safe area and guard them until i felt the threat was over.

[DiscGo]

The shooters name is: Sulejmen Talovic. He was a teenager wearing a trench coat. I just don't think that someone with a purpose driven life could do something like this.


I found his name on Yahoo (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070213/ap_on_re_us/utah_shooting)

[Jaxx]

I can see both sides. They dont have an IQ test to get a gun, just no criminal record so unfortunately some stupid people will be allowed to have guns. There are alot of ways criminals get guns like theft, having someone else purchase it for them, etc.
We should mabey have more strict laws on locking your guns in a safe that is somehow attached to your house (screwed to the framing or whatever). Making it harder for criminals to steal them from you.
The problem with being a concealed permit holder and "packing" is when you do choose to use your weapon in self defense and you accidentaly kill an innocent person you put yourself at risk to be sued and also charged with involuntary manslaughter.
I have decided that i would rather live with being in jail than to bury my wife or children, or have my children grow up without a dad. I think it would be easier to live with the accidental death of someone else's family member, although still heartbreaking. Hopefully my actions helped more people than it hurt, besides the jerk that put me in the situation (I hope he is dead in the end), to have to decide.
This is just too close to home. I am considering a concealed permit much more seriously now. I would like to think that I would never pull it out and that I would choose to run and not be a "hero", but if I had to I would like to be able to make the decision.
This is never a win-win situation. I feel so bad for the people that had to go through this situation because 1 person went crazy. On the news I saw a kid around 9 years old that had obviously been crying and was still shivering a good hour or two after the shooting. People shouldn't have to go through this kind of stuff. I wish guns weren't need for protection and all we used them for was target practice and hunting, but the sad thing is is that this world has evil people in it.
Credit has to be given to the police for what they do, and how they handled the situation. Especially the off duty Ogden cop that was the first to shoot.

[DiscGo]

My brother who has his ccp also carried bear spray in his car. His thought is that if he is ever in trouble that isn't life threatening he can use the bear spray that will the attacker but protect him. If it is life threatening he has his glock.

[Glockguy]

This is just too close to home. I am considering a concealed permit much more seriously now. I would like to think that I would never pull it out and that I would choose to run and not be a "hero", but if I had to I would like to be able to make the decision.


I would urge you to pay the $50 and take the class. You can then decide if after taking the class and listening to what is taught if you even want to file the paper work to get the permit.

It is also interesting to note that while the officer that shot the suspect was a LEO, he was CARRYING CONCEALED

[DiscGo]

That off duty cop is a total hero. He shouldn't have to buy his own drink again!

[Sombeech]

the officer that shot the suspect was a LEO, he was CARRYING CONCEALED

... and was able to stop the shooter from advancing into a more populated area. They later found a bunch more ammo in his backpack.

This kid was on his way to killing a lot more people.

[Jaxx]

I would urge you to pay the $50 and take the class. You can then decide if after taking the class and listening to what is taught if you even want to file the paper work to get the permit.

I have held off for a long time thinking that I would probably never need to use it. That is good advice, money well spent either way.

[moabfool]

Two more cents from the Moabfool. Here's some sage advice I got on my mission from a guy who stopped us on the street. He wanted to know what two white boys were doing in Bed Stuy (Bedford Stuyvesant) Brooklyn. Here's his advice:

1- A good run is better than a bad stand.

2- If you see a group of guys hanging around out in front of a building cross the street and walk on the other side. Shoot 'em if you have to.

I followed both except for once. Two weeks later I was glad I didn't take the second piece of advice. We were on the same block where we'd talked to the guy. We were walking back to our apartment and saw a group of guys hanging out in front of a building. We decided there weren't too many of them so we stayed on the same side of the street. We got about 20 yards from them when one guy pulled out a gun. People started running so I thought it would be a good idea to run too. I dove behind a car and the shooting started. In about 20 seconds the shooting was over and people started coming back. "Y'all can come out now. It's over." We walked home another way. If we had crossed the street we'd have been right in the line of fire.

I don't have a CCP (I soon will) but here's my take. If you can get away from the situation do that first. If you're trapped try to protect yourself and others as best you can. If you can take action without becoming a casualty yourself, either from the police or the perpetrator, do something. When you see the police, put your weapon away. If uniformed police officers are present let them take action.

What I think is so disturbing about the Trolley Square shooting is the total randomness. There was another shooting overnight in Philladelphia, but it was in an office. School and office shootings, while dumb, still have a focus and motive so they're slightly more understandable. It sounds like this guy was bored with video games so he grabbed a shotgun. What people never think about when they go on a shooting spree is that very seldom does the shooter get out of the situation alive. Yup, you showed everybody just how wrong they were by going on that shooting rampage and getting killed.

[DirkHammergate]

I agree.... we need more Concealed Weapon Permits to protect our Malls!!!

That's actually funny when you see the Borat Avatar next to this statement...

[DirkHammergate]

It is also interesting to note that while the officer that shot the suspect was a LEO, he was CARRYING CONCEALED

Hey, I'm a LEO, should I go with a 9MM or a 357? What's better for kneecaps?

[Iceaxe]

[quote=James_B_Wads2000]penises can be used in not-rape situations, this is called

[Alex]

I would urge you to pay the $50 and take the class. You can then decide if after taking the class and listening to what is taught if you even want to file the paper work to get the permit.


Where do you find out more info on this class?

[Scott P]

Still, the facts about England aren't in dispute, and there's no evidence that gun control reduces crime. Go research that, and let us know what you find.

You are right that countries with tough gun laws don't really have a lower crime rate. What they do have a lower murder rate including England, rather than an overall lower crime rate.

In England crime rates are higher than in the US, especially theft and fraud. However, the US has a murder rate 3.44 times higher than England.

By looking at the trend, perhaps it is fair to say that more guns do not increase crime rates, but do increase murder rates.

Of course, the USA actually doesn't have the highest murder rate in the world, even by guns. We're actually #8. Below are some interesting stats.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir_percap-crime-murders-firearms-per-capita

(PS, I do believe that people should be allowed to have a gun, but I also believe it is too easy for one to do so and that their should be more accountability. Another PS, Craig City Council tonight is voting on allowing deer hunting within city limits and it does worry me).

[nat]

so you believe in the loose interpretation of the 2nd amendment, eh?

I certainly do. As Moe from the Simpson's once said, "Guns are for keepin' the King of England outta your face." Think about that for a minute. Throw away the idea of reducing crime, and look at the larger picture. What government fears an unarmed citizenry?

Excellent point! Especially given the conservative wackos currently occupying the White House, who seem obsessed with increasing executive power.

[HEADHUNTER]

I am sure out of the thousands of people (as media puts it) there were plenty of CCPs in there and everyone ran for help. CCP is good at the gun range or show it off before friends, when it comes to death/life situation facing a mindless cold blooded killer with a shotgun, you'd just pee your pants.

CCP teaches you how to shoot a gun, how to reload, how to draw and boost your manliness. But when it comes to actually taking someone's life, the human instincts kick in to flee.

Even trained soldiers in Iraq, who are brainwashed into taking others' lives, are hesitant of pulling the triggers.

Wow - ignorance is bliss. I love uneducated posts and yours - well - it took 1st place.

Please make sure you tell all Veterans - including myself - that we were brainwashed and hesitant to pull the trigger.

And flee - maybe you would flee and go somwhere to squat and piss your pants, but don't lump us in with what YOU would do.

[fourtycal]

"Six minutes from the first call to police to conclusion" (KSL.COM)
I am impressed with the quick response. 9 shot in that short time and how many more if that off duty cop wasn't there or didn't have his gun?

I have had a concealed permit for many years and think everyone should have one whether you have a gun or not. Maybe if the bad guys think one of every two people might have a gun they wouldn't feel so free to march right in and start shooting or robbing or....

[donny h]

I have never heard of a cop that couldn't carry a weapon off-duty. I'd like to see what cities you are referring to. Plus, Bush passed a law awhile back that allows a cop to carry a gun in any state, no matter where he is employed.

I didn't say they can't carry, I said some cities are trying to make it that way.

Yes, Bush signed HR218 in 2004, as a direct response to mayors talking about making it illegal to carry off-duty.

Daley, Bloomberg, Nagin. There are the 3 prominant guys who are on record as saying off-duty cops shouldn't carry, Daley brings it up every year.

Daley has compiled a list of places to ban the practice, as a way around 218, instead of a blanket ban that would run contrary to federal law.

[donny h]

FYI: The off-duty cop had a 8-shot Kimber, in .45acp, which he has on him 95% of the time, in his own words.

Unsubstantiated rumor, from a law enforcement insider at SLCPD:

No CCW holders who were armed at the time were in the mall.

Seven unarmed off-duty cops were in the mall.

Take it with a grain of salt, those are rumors, but they're cop rumors, not press rumors.

Question for y'all: Are there signs at Trolley Square forbidding CCW holders from carrying inside the mall?

[HEADHUNTER]

Unsubstantiated rumor, from a law enforcement insider at SLCPD:

No CCW holders who were armed at the time were in the mall.



Yeah- that would probably be a big rumor - unless they interviewed and did background checks on EVERY single person that was in the mall. More like speculation on their part. But, the big thing - they got the job done.

[donny h]

This rumor has been deleted by myself, as no good can come from it.

Move along, nothing to see here.

[donny h]

unless they interviewed and did background checks on EVERY single person that was in the mall.

And didn't miss a single witness, and all of the folks being interviewed would have to be truthful about whether they were armed or not at the time. I agree, probably just a rumor, and here is the LATEST rumor floating around:

The cop has a concealed carry permit, and he was carrying under that permit, not because he's law enforcement.

Either way, it's splitting hairs, as grampa would've said "He done good. Real good".

That's the last rumor I'll post, more truths will come out in the days to come.

[HEADHUNTER]

Not sure if that's a rumor or not. I would assume that since he's a cop - he's covered to carry off duty. Dunno - nothing I've read gives any information whether it was his gun or a duty gun. I would assume if it's a Kimber it's his.

[Glockguy]

Where do you find out more info on this class?

Here is the instructor info that I HIGHLY recommend.

W. Clark Aposhian
801-943-5322

He knows his stuff. He is a lobbyist and actuall helps WRITE LEGISLATION on firearms for the state of Utah.

[donny h]

Dunno - nothing I've read gives any information whether it was his gun or a duty gun.

IMHO, an 8-shot Kimber wouldn't be a good duty weapon, I would want a higher capacity magazine than that.

It would, however, make a nice back-up gun when on-duty, and a slim, concealable off-duty weapon, so I think it's likely that the Kimber is his own, personal gun, all that is pure speculation on my part.

[HEADHUNTER]

Dunno - nothing I've read gives any information whether it was his gun or a duty gun.

IMHO, an 8-shot Kimber wouldn't be a good duty weapon, I would want a higher capacity magazine than that.

It would, however, make a nice back-up gun when on-duty, and a slim, concealable off-duty weapon, so I think it's likely that the Kimber is his own, personal gun, all that is pure speculation on my part.

Yeah - you are correct - sounds more like a personal gun. Mine - Taurus PT145. Not a bad start - hopefully next year I can snag an XD45 to carry.

[JP]

LOL I didn't end up going to police academy, but I've been seeking good training.
That's how most people feel when they get a weapon and my hats off to you for doing so :gents: Nothing like educating yourself even more :nod:


I would urge you to pay the $50 and take the class. You can then decide if after taking the class and listening to what is taught if you even want to file the paper work to get the permit.

It is also interesting to note that while the officer that shot the suspect was a LEO, he was CARRYING CONCEALED
:gents: To you as well :mrgreen:

I don't think most here have a problem with off-duty cops carrying.



Where do you find out more info on this class?
Walk into your neighborhood gun shop and ask about a pistol course and or gun safety. They'll know who, when and where. As far as an advanced course in shooting and self-defense like Jumar did, the Internet is your friend.

Here's something from your State:
UTAH'S CARRY APLICATION (http://www.gunthorp.com/Carry%20Application%20Utah.htm)


I didn't say they can't carry, I said some cities are trying to make it that way.

Yes, Bush signed HR218 in 2004, as a direct response to mayors talking about making it illegal to carry off-duty.

Daley, Bloomberg, Nagin. There are the 3 prominant guys who are on record as saying off-duty cops shouldn't carry, Daley brings it up every year.

Daley has compiled a list of places to ban the practice, as a way around 218, instead of a blanket ban that would run contrary to federal law.
I doubt this will happen since an off duty cop is actually on duty when things like this actually happen. With cops training and experience, it's hard to believe (well I guess not, they're politicians) that people would not want guns in their hands. The training and experience is what sets them above the average citizen. Qualifications, classes, etc, they undertake while on the job. I'll have to do a little looking into those three you mentioned. I can't see Bloomberg being that way, but again, he's a politician and all the officer-involved shootings in NYC becomes a political debate and a racial issue.


Is it never appropriate to defend yourself or do I have to run away every time? To not defend yourself flies in the face of reason, history, and self-preservation. Absolute ban on guns seems to imply that it is never appropriate to fight or defend oneself or others. I can't accept that. Fight or flight is situational. I would like both options in what ever situation I am in. I am not trigger happy nor do I even have a concealed weapon permit (although this event may have just tipped me over the edge to go get one) It really is a foregone conclusion that criminals will have guns or knives or some weapon to do their destruction.
Very well said Scott :2thumbs:

[Glockguy]

Kimbers are great weapons. I also am more of a fan of higher capacity but to each his own.

Remember, A gun is better than NO gun!!!

Many people will offer lots of different suggestions. The most imprtant is for your choice to fit you comfortably.

Don't forget to get something that you can economically shoot. Cartridges can get $$$ and you need to practice a lot.

Maybe we need to have a UUTAH shoot so people can try out others weapons and see what they like?

[HEADHUNTER]

Kimbers are great weapons. I also am more of a fan of higher capacity but to each his own.

Remember, A gun is better than NO gun!!!

Many people will offer lots of different suggestions. The most imprtant is for your choice to fit you comfortably.

Don't forget to get something that you can economically shoot. Cartridges can get $$$ and you need to practice a lot.

Maybe we need to have a UUTAH shoot so people can try out others weapons and see what they like?

And practice, practice and practice some more. I took an advance handgun class - pretty good stuff. Interesting scenarios. I'd like to take some Front Sight classes, but dang, they are expensive. I'm hoping the group I took my class from has more classes down the road that I can take and continue my education.

[moabfool]

My dad was in law enforcement and I quite literally grew up in a police station. All police officers in the state of Utah are licensed by the state as "Utah Peace Officers." Don't buy any of this "he was out of his jurisdiction" crap. In Utah a cop is a cop is a cop, from college campus/school district police on up to the UHP. They are hired by a law enforcement agency and as such generally stick to enforcing the law within the boundaries of that agency, but a Logan City Police Officer can write you a ticket or arrest you for breaking a state law in Escalante.

All "off duty" police officers can carry concealed without a CCP. Before the concealed carry law passed I was sitting in class at WSU. I noticed a Baretta loosely concealed on the girl sitting next to me. Turns out she's a cop and knew my dad.

Also, "off duty" is a Hollywood/news media term. A police officer has a duty to uphold and enforce the law at all times. My dad always said "they're not off duty, they're off shift (as in day, swing, and grave yard shift)."

I think a uutah range day would be a lot of fun. I just got a Springfield Arms XD40 and I need to put some rounds through it. Where can I get inexpensive .40 cal ammo? I'm also looking into something smaller for concealed carry. I've got pretty big hands but I know I'd need something slimmer. Any suggestions? I'd prefer 9mm to 380 simply because of the difference in the price of ammo.

[DirkHammergate]

It is also interesting to note that while the officer that shot the suspect was a LEO, he was CARRYING CONCEALED

Hey, I'm a LEO, should I go with a 9MM or a 357? What's better for kneecaps?

Honest question, 9MM or a bat, aluminum. I'm just afraid I'd get a little carried away with a bat and instead of focusing on the knees I'd go all mobster and whack the melon off...

[moabfool]

There's a lot of talk about kneecaps going on. Another word of advice my dad gave me, shoot to kill. When you get a bead on your attacker keep shooting 'till they're on the ground. If you shoot to wound your mercy will not be rewarded. If you let them live some greasy lawyer will convince them to sue you.

[jumar]

Front sight they say put two to the chest, and if that doesn't take them down, one to the head. They also show you the groupings you'd want, where it will most likely be a kill etc and finding a balance between speed of firing, and accuracy.

[shagster]

There's a lot of talk about kneecaps going on. Another word of advice my dad gave me, shoot to kill. When you get a bead on your attacker keep shooting 'till they're on the ground. If you shoot to wound your mercy will not be rewarded. If you let them live some greasy lawyer will convince them to sue you.

I don't know about the rest of you, but if I start shooting I will be unloading my clip. I want to make sure the threat is nuetralized. :2guns:

[JP]

It's a pretty simple concept; you shoot for center mass and you shoot until the threat is over. It maybe one shot or it maybe six, each situation is different. You always shoot for center mass, this is to insure that most of your shots will hit.

[price1869]

There's a lot of talk about kneecaps going on. Another word of advice my dad gave me, shoot to kill. When you get a bead on your attacker keep shooting 'till they're on the ground. If you shoot to wound your mercy will not be rewarded. If you let them live some greasy lawyer will convince them to sue you.

I don't know about the rest of you, but if I start shooting I will be unloading my clip. I want to make sure the threat is nuetralized. :2guns:

is this true/necessary? Granted, unless i was highly proficient, I would shoot for center mass, but is a well trained marksman able to disarm/disable without mortally wounding the subject?

I guess not, since the police always seem to pump as many rounds into a threat as they feel necessary. Interesting concept.

[jumar]

The thinking is if you don't know how many threats there are. Empty your magazine into one assailant, and if another one comes you didn't know about...

Center of mass is where to start, but if they're wearing a vest or are hopped up on drugs, it may take one to the head to stop them. Bunch of stories of guys on drugs that took fatal shots to their chest, but continued to be a threat.

They have a specific range on where to hit in the chest and the head. For example a shot to the forehead or below the nose may not be as fatal as you'd expect. My dad knew a guy who shot himself in the mouth trying to commit suicide. Broke a bunch of his teeth, but didn't kill him. LOL

[JP]

is this true/necessary? Granted, unless i was highly proficient, I would shoot for center mass, but is a well trained marksman able to disarm/disable without mortally wounding the subject?

I guess not, since the police always seem to pump as many rounds into a threat as they feel necessary. Interesting concept.
Gee, when someone is engaging you I'm sure you're not stopping after one shot and asking the perp if that one shot you fired did the trick. How many ever it takes to end the threat is necessary. To the average person it seems like some type of cruelty, the reality is that you are stopping the aggression.
Let me put it to you this way. Shooting a person is the last resort, so if you are shooting at someone, the threat is real. The threat that this individual is going to cause you or a third person great bodily harm or death. Nobody shoots to disarm, this isn't the movies of the wild wild west, this is reality and when you shoot someone it is to stop that aggression. The stoppage of that aggression usually results in death as you saw what transpired in the SLC mall.
Police shoot until the aggression is over, that is how they are trained. Not to shoot once or twice and then see if the guy is going to still be firing at them. This is sadly how people that don't have a clue see shootings. And that's the very sad part.

[jumar]

Police shoot until the aggression is over, that is how they are trained. Not to shoot once or twice and then see if the guy is going to still be firing at them.

Well I can't speak for all the police training, but the "2 to the chest, 1 to the head" approach is pretty standard. My uncle is swat in WY and they're taught that. This is an excerpt from another state's training of one of their excercises:

On command, draw utilizing a one-hand hold and fire two rounds center chest and one round into the head, first target, then two chest, one head into the second target. Do not holster until the command is given to holster.


Without a guarantee of multiple assailants, you can't afford to use more ammo than necessary to stop a threat. Of course there's a bunch of variables so there's very few absolutes. But generally it's accepted that 2 to the chest is usually sufficient. And if it isn't (because of a vest or drugs etc) then a shot to the head should take the person down. Then you've only used a few rounds on the one threat, and are ready to engage another one if necessary.

But I don't know if all police are trained this way :ne_nau:

[JP]

Well I can't speak for all the police training, but the "2 to the chest, 1 to the head" approach is pretty standard. My uncle is swat in WY and they're taught that.
Not all cops are in tactical teams. Tactically, that may make sense using things like MP5's. Not all cops have the training that tactical teams get. When speaking of police, people don't just assume something like S.W.A.T., they think of that uniformed police officer that steps out of his car when pulling you over. In their training, it's always center mass. People tend to lose sight of the fact that a person is not a paper target, a person moves. The head can move one way or another, that's not stationary. Center mass has less movement than the head, arms and legs. It's just when kids are taught in basketball, look at the torso. All the movements and fakes are done through the head and extremities, but the torso basically is telling you where they are actually going. Again, center mass is the ideal spot and you do whatever it is necessary. Ya, bulletproof vests, yada, yada, yada. You're not going to be hitting a head being a little distance out, on a person moving. On top of that, what is in the background? Innocent people? Center mass.

[jumar]

Not just swat teaches it. It was taught when he was a regular cop too. and it's taught with handguns, not just rifles.

Looking around a bit it varies some depending on who does the training. Looks like the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center does 2 to the chest, 1 to the head.

This guy says 4 to the chest. One to the head.
http://www.policeone.com/writers/columnists/marksman/articles/126803/

I'm not disagreeing with the center of mass. That's where you start, and most the time that's where it ends. But if it doesn't stop him? More in the chest? One to the head? Start throwing rocks? Probably depends on the scenario. With so many variables, like the ones you mention (person moving...people in the background...) I wouldn't say there's an absolute rule one way or the other. How many rounds you put where and in what type of scenarios? More training one gets the better one can decide what to do in difficult situation. 2 to the chest, 1 to the head seems pretty standard place to start from. Of course there's probably plenty of experts that debate that back and forth too. LOL

[jumar]

You bring up some good questions though. I think I'll chat with my uncle and get his perspective on it. I'll let ya'll know what he says :)

As I said, more training you get, the more you learn the better prepared you'll be. So I'm all about learning, even I find I'm 100% wrong. Better to find that out now, than in a fire fight. :)

[price1869]

Okay,

second situation,

you have an unarmed assailant, or someone with a knife. He doesn't think you have the guts to shoot him, or he's on drugs or whatever.

Do you pop him in the knee?

[jumar]

This is an interesting article from the Police Officers Safety Association
http://www.policeone.com/training/articles/121328/

His approach is much like the one you suggest.

Essentially, there are really only three ways that bullets stop someone:

1) central nervous system hits that prevent the brain from directing the body,
2) loss of blood pressure, or
3) such overwhelming pain and shock that the body shuts down.

Further, all handgun bullets are extremely ineffective. None of them (even .357s and .45s) are reliable one-shot stoppers. Now, the "shot placement" school of handgunning advocates central nervous system (CNS) shots or center-mass shots to accomplish either 1) or 2) above. But brain stem or head shots are all but impossible to realize in the violent chaos of a real-life encounter, while hydraulic pressure loss occurs too slowly to be of reliable use, even with major blood vessels hit.

That leaves 3) above - inflicting massive shock or pain. Accomplishing this is done with many shots placed on the adversary as fast as possible. They don't all have to be center-mass or CNS shots - just lots of hits quickly.

And so this is our theory of handgun "stopping power": Put a lot of hurt onto your enemy quickly. Caliber is not very important--any significant caliber will do. Just hit 'em often and fast. So curricula design criteria number three is to train in multiple shots delivered quickly.


I'd like to ask some of the guys that teach the "2 chest, 1 head" approach about this. It may not work if the person is on drugs and not feeling pain. If you can accomplish the one in the head it'll stop even those hopped up on drugs. But that can be a pretty big IF....

I'm going to look more into it :popcorn:

[jumar]

you have an unarmed assailant, or someone with a knife. He doesn't think you have the guts to shoot him, or he's on drugs or whatever.

Do you pop him in the knee?


Boy there's endless possible scenarios. That's probably the toughest thing , to learn good judgement to know what to do in so many possible situations. And you have to know the law where you are, when you can use deadly force, or if you're get in trouble for using unequal force if they don't also have a gun. Heard about a guy that got in trouble for shooting some people breaking into his house to attack them with bats. There was a bunch of them, but it was still considered unequal force. Sheesh.

Front Sight goes through a bunch of this though. They have a bunch on threat assessment and how to prevent actually having to use a firearm. Training training training

[JP]

Okay,

second situation,

you have an unarmed assailant, or someone with a knife. He doesn't think you have the guts to shoot him, or he's on drugs or whatever.

Do you pop him in the knee?
A individual with a knife is probably more dangerous than that of a person with a gun. The person is say 10' from you and he pulls out a knife and begins to run at you. You are not getting that gun out of your holster before he's on you. Most people with guns view a person with a knife as a joke. You know, you don't bring a knife to a gunfight. Well, with that thinking, you're dead. I don't care what kind of cannon you're packing. So, to your knife scenario, he's just as much dead as the guy with the gun. You shoot until the threat is over. People charging with a knife maybe taking a little more firepower than that guy standing 10' away.
Unarmed person? Umm, I wouldn't be firing anything. Now there's gonna be an arse kicking :roflol: Same to the person on drugs. The only time you would be justified to shoot the unarmed or druggie, would be that they had you beaten in such away you feared for your life, you tried to get away and are being over powered and you feared serious physical injury or death. Basically the rule of thumb is, you react with equal force. A guy comes up and punches you in the face, you're not going to shoot him. You'll defend yourself with your hands or less than lethal means. A female in an attempted rape situation, oh she's shooting before he gets a chance to commit the act.

[jumar]

Hey JP, what are the gun laws like in CT? Just curious.

[JP]

Hey JP, what are the gun laws like in CT? Just curious.
Wild, wild, East :roflol:
Probably the same or close to Utah's. You can carry concealed here in Connecticut if you have your Carry Permit. Obviously if you're a convicted felon, no guns for you. In the case of actually pulling your gun out and shooting someone, you or a third person must be in a situation where serious physical injury or death can be a result and retreat is not an option. In defense of your home or business, the difference here is the option of retreat is thrown out the window.

[jumar]

Cool! :2thumbs: Yeah, sounds about the same as Utah.

[HEADHUNTER]

Okay,

second situation,

you have an unarmed assailant, or someone with a knife. He doesn't think you have the guts to shoot him, or he's on drugs or whatever.

Do you pop him in the knee?

Person with a knife? How far away? Am I in imminent danger? Are they charging? Would I have time to possible move away and then pull out a gun? Too many variables. If the person with a knife is charging me and I feel that my life is in danger - why would I pop him in the knee? I would hope I would have my faculties with me and tell him to drop the knife - if he doesn't then I would have no choice but to defend myself according to Utah law.

As for the unarmed assailant - not sure how I'd feel my life is in danger - he'd get a good fight from me, but my weapon would stay put. Unless I feel like my life is in danger.

[Glockguy]

There's a lot of talk about kneecaps going on. Another word of advice my dad gave me, shoot to kill. When you get a bead on your attacker keep shooting 'till they're on the ground. If you shoot to wound your mercy will not be rewarded. If you let them live some greasy lawyer will convince them to sue you.

I don't know about the rest of you, but if I start shooting I will be unloading my clip. I want to make sure the threat is nuetralized. :2guns:

Will you be using a rifle? Pistols do not have "clips" they have magazines.

Clips are for rifles like an SKS or a Garand etc. It's ok, Hollywood has poisoned you . :roll:

[Glockguy]

Okay,

second situation,

you have an unarmed assailant, or someone with a knife. He doesn't think you have the guts to shoot him, or he's on drugs or whatever.

Do you pop him in the knee?

You don't shoot to hurt, you shoot to end the threat. You shoot because you felt that your life or someone else was threatened. Shooting in the knee caps is probably not going to end the threat (It might, but I don't want to take any chances that it might not.)

This can vary greatly. If little old lady in a wheel chair says she's going to kick my ass...=not threatened...don't shoot.

If a little old lady in a wheel chair says she's going to shoot me and has a pistol and is 15 feet away from me..=threatened...shoot to kill

If a little old lady in a wheel chair says she's going to shoot me and has a pistol and is 100 yards away away from me..=no threat...don't shoot, call police...

If a 6'5" 300 biker is unarmed and says he is going to kick my ass...=threatened...draw weapon...tell him to back the hell off...YELL it LOUDLY so that and witnesses can say the guy was warned....If he keeps coming at me and I feel threatened...shhot to kill..

If a 6'5" 300 biker is unarmed and says he is going to kick my ass..but I am a 7' tall 350 ultimate fighting champion and feel competent in my fighting skills..probably not shoot

There are many scenarios. When you hear of news stories it is good to run them over in your mind and ask "What would I do?"

[shagster]

There's a lot of talk about kneecaps going on. Another word of advice my dad gave me, shoot to kill. When you get a bead on your attacker keep shooting 'till they're on the ground. If you shoot to wound your mercy will not be rewarded. If you let them live some greasy lawyer will convince them to sue you.

I don't know about the rest of you, but if I start shooting I will be unloading my clip. I want to make sure the threat is nuetralized. :2guns:

Will you be using a rifle? Pistols do not have "clips" they have magazines.

Clips are for rifles like an SKS or a Garand etc. It's ok, Hollywood has poisoned you . :roll:

Your right sorry, I will empty my magazines. I didn't even think before I typed that last time. :ne_nau:

[HEADHUNTER]

Glockguy - you bring up a good point - about YELLING at the bad guy loud enough for witnesses to hear. If the person continues their actions and you have given them sufficient warning then it's good.

The So. Ogden LEO did the same thing - according to his account. He told the kid to drop it and he wouldn't - the kid fired at him and the LEO returned fire. This is EXACTLY what anyone should do. Will it happen everytime - probably not. Bad guy could be on you quicker than you'd guess and then it's up to you to react.

Great scenarios.

[price1869]

If a 6'5" 300 biker is unarmed and says he is going to kick my ass...=threatened...draw weapon...tell him to back the hell off...YELL it LOUDLY so that and witnesses can say the guy was warned....If he keeps coming at me and I feel threatened...shhot to kill..


I was just asking the question, not saying what I would do, but i think that in this situation, I'd probably take the beating over killing the guy. Personal choice, I guess. I'd consider shooting if I thought my life was in danger. I can think calmly and quickly in panic situations. It's something I've worked on my whole life, and I'm rather proud of.

[price1869]

Glockguy - you bring up a good point - about YELLING at the bad guy loud enough for witnesses to hear. If the person continues their actions and you have given them sufficient warning then it's good.

The So. Ogden LEO did the same thing - according to his account. He told the kid to drop it and he wouldn't - the kid fired at him and the LEO returned fire. This is EXACTLY what anyone should do. Will it happen everytime - probably not. Bad guy could be on you quicker than you'd guess and then it's up to you to react.

Great scenarios.

This situation:

I've thought this through a lot. I'd cap him without warning. I'm sure this is not the recommended course of action, but ifI'm watching someone shoot others, I would have a hard time hesitating. Even if I didn't have a gun, I think I'd try to rush the guy, if it seemed even remotely possible. Maybe even if it didn't. Makes me think of the 4th plane on 9/11. Also the line in "America the Beautiful" "Who more than self the country loved
And mercy more than life! " I'd like to fulfill that prophesy someday.

[HEADHUNTER]

Glockguy - you bring up a good point - about YELLING at the bad guy loud enough for witnesses to hear. If the person continues their actions and you have given them sufficient warning then it's good.

The So. Ogden LEO did the same thing - according to his account. He told the kid to drop it and he wouldn't - the kid fired at him and the LEO returned fire. This is EXACTLY what anyone should do. Will it happen everytime - probably not. Bad guy could be on you quicker than you'd guess and then it's up to you to react.

Great scenarios.

This situation:

I've thought this through a lot. I'd cap him without warning. I'm sure this is not the recommended course of action, but ifI'm watching someone shoot others, I would have a hard time hesitating. Even if I didn't have a gun, I think I'd try to rush the guy, if it seemed even remotely possible. Maybe even if it didn't. Makes me think of the 4th plane on 9/11. Also the line in "America the Beautiful" "Who more than self the country loved
And mercy more than life! " I'd like to fulfill that prophesy someday.

Not sure I'd rush someone with a gun of any sort. Apparently this kid was shooting twice - then reloading - always had one in the chamber. It would be hard to hesitate - I can agree with that. I'm guessing the LEO was behind something and not standing out in the open.

[jumar]

Update on my earlier comments. Chatted with my uncle who's currently swat, and has been a cop for years. He said they used to teach the "2 to the chest, 1 to the head" approach, but are now moving away from it. They're doing more like the article I mentioned before.
http://www.policeone.com/training/articles/121328/

What they train on now is three controlled pairs to the chest and close in on the threat. Since we're not cops and don't need to 'close' in on the threat. But it's interesting that they've switched to doing it this way.

So you shoot two rapid [but controlled] shots, three times as rapidly as you can hit 'im.

I wonder when/if the training at places like Front Sight will be updated with this newer approach.

[JP]

to the chest

But it's interesting that they've switched to doing it this way
Center mass :haha: Less chance on missing and throwing shots down range and not knowing what else they are going to hit :mrgreen: Closing in (closing the distance) to where they have a better chance to hit things like the head if the person for some reason or another still poses a threat.

[accadacca]

Home Video Taken Inside Trolley Square During Shooting Rampage

This is amazing that this whole thing is on camera. :eek2:

http://kutv.com/video/?id=23467@kutv.dayport.com

[JP]

Cameras are everywhere in this day and age. I don't carry a video camera with me everywhere, but my little digital Olympus is in my ZJ when I leave the house.

[caburt]

What a horrifying video. Nothing feels quite as unsettling as being near uncontrolled gunfire. I've experienced a couple of these moments in a favela (ghetto) in Brazil and I can honestly say that I would have liked to have a gun on me. I just signed up for a concealed weapon class. I'm for guns, but also for education. That's the key to gun control. If more people were educated, there would be more control over guns. I started shooting with my dad and brothers when I was 10 and got my first gun when I was 12. I've never wanted to use my gun to harm anyone and think that if more people had this kind of education and training there wouldn't be as much gun abuse.

[stefan]

Trolley Square shootings: Man linked to gun gets nine months
Matthew Hautala, who was on probation, pleads guilty to two violations in plea deal
By Pamela Manson
The Salt Lake Tribune


A Wyoming man on probation for his role in transferring a handgun that was used in the Trolley Square shootings was sentenced to nine months in prison Wednesday for probation violations.

Matthew Hautala, 22, received the sentence from U.S. District Judge Dale Kimball after negotiating a plea arrangement with prosecutors.

Prosecutors claimed Hautala committed five violations of his probation: possessed or distributed LSD, possessed or distributed cocaine, unlawfully took property worth $500 from someone, failed to inform his probation officer of a change in residence in January and failed to submit a supervised-release report for December.

He admitted Wednesday to failing to submit the report and failing to supply his new address. The other three charges were dropped.

Hautala still faces federal charges in Wyoming: two counts of LSD distribution and one count of cocaine distribution. The LSD charges carry a minimum mandatory sentence of 10 years each if Hautala is convicted.

He also faces state charges in Wyoming of theft and burglary.

The alleged drug offenses occurred in Wyoming eight days after Hautala was sentenced in Utah, according to the U.S. Attorney's Office.

In 2006, Hautala saw another Wyoming man transfer the handgun to Mackenzie Glade Hunter in Rock Springs. Hunter gave the gun to Brenden Taylor Brown in Utah and later set up a meeting where the two of them sold the gun to Sulejman Talovic, then 17.

Hautala originally was accused of lying to investigators by denying he knew anything about the transfer of the firearm.

As part of a plea deal, that felony was reduced to a misdemeanor charge of aiding and abetting the unlawful transfer of a firearm to a juvenile. In addition to being placed on a year of supervised release by Kimball, Hautala was fined $500.

Hunter was sentenced to 15 months behind bars. Brown received the same punishment as Hautala, a year of probation and a $500 fine.