Jump to content
  • Current Donation Goals

    • Raised $3,162.05 of $3,600 target

Open Club  ·  42 members  ·  Free

OOB v2.0

Gun Safety Rules (Refresher)......


swordfish
 Share

Recommended Posts

Number 1)  Treat every gun like it is loaded - ****Check it yourself***** - NEVER trust anyone to "tell" you it isn't loaded.

Number 2)  NEVER point your gun at something or someone unless you intend to destroy it, or kill that person.

When Alec Baldwin (who is outspoken against gun rights) is handed a handgun that he is "told" is "cold" (meaning "not loaded") and proceeds to point it at anything -or- ANYBODY without first checking for himself to ensure it is indeed "not loaded" he is negligent and should be prosecuted for whatever degree manslaughter would apply if or when there is death. 

Too Soon?  - IDC.

246948549_1060361644723548_7513735646760154765_n.jpg?_nc_cat=103&ccb=1-5&_nc_sid=8bfeb9&_nc_ohc=7n-xlZR0-f8AX8nvWe6&tn=XMupCP0Ua91kAw_f&_nc_ht=scontent-ort2-2.xx&oh=d1b3fc151f7a9ecd32b1d1b1aea847f7&oe=619D32CB

Edited by swordfish
  • Like 1
  • Kill me now 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

https://nypost.com/2021/12/03/alec-baldwin-blames-victim-in-sickening-interview/

Just when you think Alec Baldwin can’t go any lower, he blames Halyna Hutchins, the woman he shot to death, for getting shot to death.

“Everything is at her direction,” Baldwin told a sycophantic George Stephanopoulos during a jaw-dropping, hourlong interview that aired Thursday night.

“I’m holding the gun where she told me to hold it,” Baldwin said, “which ended up right below her armpit. Which is what I was told — I don’t know.”

There was so much Baldwin claimed not to know.

And Stephanopoulos, his longtime friend from the Hamptons — not that the average viewer would know that — was only too eager to pitch softball after softball.

Yes, one of ABC’s leading journalists — I use that term loosely — hardly challenged Baldwin when he claimed, repeatedly, that he never pulled the trigger, that the gun just went rogue.

“I would never point a gun at anyone,” Baldwin said — despite his earlier assertion that Hutchins had told him to point the gun at her, so he did — “and pull the trigger at them. Never.”

“The bullet striking and killing that woman came out of the barrel of the gun pointed directly at her,” says retired FBI Agent Bobby Chacon, who now works as a writer and on-set consultant in Hollywood.

“Bullets don’t curve. He isn’t in ‘The Matrix.’ The trigger would still have to be pulled.”

“I’m not aware of any gun firing itself,” says Steve Wolf, a Hollywood firearms and special-effects expert since 1994. “I’ve never seen a gun self-discharge. A single action revolver like this” — the Colt that Baldwin fired — “can be discharged very easily, with minimal input required . . . The trigger still must have been pressed.”

Wolf is also outraged by a larger concern. “It’s really important to discredit anyone who claims that guns fire themselves,” he says. “If this becomes an acceptable defense, there goes any accountability when it comes to shooting people. We can’t have this kind of ‘guns shoot themselves’ thing. They don’t.”

Perhaps — perhaps — Baldwin is in denial. That’s the generous interpretation, but it’s hard to feel generous toward him when he and his wife have been behaving so deplorably.

There was the jaunt to Vermont immediately after the shooting, shopping at Ralph Lauren and buying out a local tavern, sitting right in front of the window where paparazzi could get unobstructed pictures.

Then came the bizarre roadside press conference in which Hilaria yelled self-righteously at the press while angling to get in every camera frame. All quickly followed by the gross Instagram posts on Halloween and after, raving about how happy their children are, while Hutchins’ son, only 9 when she died, was so traumatized he couldn’t speak for two days after her death.

On Thursday morning, hours before this interview aired, Baldwin was photographed going for coffee and loading up his car — en route to the Hamptons, no doubt — while his gross fraud of a wife, Hilaria, strutted around in metallic leggings, four-inch heels and a gold $1,900 Moncler vest.

Thursday’s little gambit, Baldwin attempting to elicit sympathy while pointing the finger at everyone else, was an epic miscalculation.

He truly believes we’ll feel sorry for him — Alec Baldwin, one of Hollywood’s biggest bullies and rage monsters, attempting to squeeze out tears as he laments how this has ruined his love of moviemaking.

Stephanopoulos is equally to blame here. This was an embarrassing line of questioning.

“What was it that drew you to this project in the first place,” Stephanopoulos asked, “to ‘Rust’?”

Who cares? What is this — an episode of “Access Hollywood”?

“People who are watching this show,” Baldwin said — meaning people like you and me, the little people — “you have no idea how unique a motion-picture set is … the amount of care …”

Care? That’s rich given what we know about this set, the seven crew members who walked that very morning over documented safety concerns, at least two accidental gun discharges, one accidental special-effects explosion and a young, inexperienced armorer — but, hey, sure, let’s go with “care.”

“I looked at all these people, and I see how hard they worked and they’re so conscientious” — unbelievable — “and you’re part of one of the great collaborative processes in the world: moviemaking.”

Here’s the essence of this tragedy: It was just a movie. A fast, cheap and out-of-control production that cost a young wife and mother her life.

Ignore Baldwin’s excuses. Everyone from Chacon to Wolf to George Clooney and others has said safety protocols on set are specific, simple, exact, rigorous and to be followed to the letter every time.

Every. Single. Time.

In speaking to me a few weeks ago, Wolf presented an interesting hypothetical: “If that scene required [Baldwin] to put the gun to his head and pull the trigger, I’m sure he would have taken a look inside the gun. Wouldn’t you?”

If only Stephanopoulos had asked that question.

Instead, we learned that Baldwin now has nightmares (poor him!), feels no guilt, and fully expects Hutchins’ widower, Matthew, to sue — but is feeling pretty confident that he won’t be charged criminally and that Matthew won’t come after him personally.

“Someone is responsible for what happened,” Baldwin said, “and I know it’s not me.”

After this interview — and Baldwin’s callous demeanor these past few weeks — Matthew Hutchins, especially, might feel differently.

Mr. Baldwin is trying to  point blame everywhere except at the guy holding the gun that fired the shot......

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 weeks later...
16 hours ago, Impartial_Observer said:

Baldwin can spin this however he wants. It was a negligent discharge. The gun was in his charge at the time, he is responsible. I don’t see any getting around that. 

I agree....my only question is how the hell did a live round find its way into a movie prop gun? Seems like that is something that should have never been a thing. I am thinking too, ok, they get to filming the actual scene; according to the script, I am guessing he is supposed to aim and fire the weapon. So someone was likely going to be shot that day. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Irishman said:

I agree....my only question is how the hell did a live round find its way into a movie prop gun? Seems like that is something that should have never been a thing. I am thinking too, ok, they get to filming the actual scene; according to the script, I am guessing he is supposed to aim and fire the weapon. So someone was likely going to be shot that day. 

I confess I haven’t followed this story. Was the weapon a revolver? Was there only one round loaded? If there were multiple rounds, was this the only “live” one?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Bobref said:

I confess I haven’t followed this story. Was the weapon a revolver? Was there only one round loaded? If there were multiple rounds, was this the only “live” one?

It was an antique Colt .45. Apparently a person on the set handed him the gun and used the term cold gun, meaning it was safe. It was the only live round in the gun. Not sure if that means the other rounds were blanks and in the gun, or if it only had the one round in it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Irishman said:

It was an antique Colt .45. Apparently a person on the set handed him the gun and used the term cold gun, meaning it was safe. It was the only live round in the gun. Not sure if that means the other rounds were blanks and in the gun, or if it only had the one round in it. 

I’ve always thought Baldwin was a DWE, but his behavior in the aftermath of this is shameful.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bobref said:

I confess I haven’t followed this story. Was the weapon a revolver? Was there only one round loaded? If there were multiple rounds, was this the only “live” one?

Initial reports were the armorer involved in the movie was somewhat inexperienced. I don’t think she had ever been a head armorer  before on a movie. It was widely reported at the time that the weapons were basically kept on set on a table and were available to to cast and crew where several people had taken the guns into the dessert to fire live rounds. The gun involved was a old timey single action revolver. So it’s not just a matter of pulling the trigger, you also have to pull the  hammer back prior to firing. 
 

1) Assume every gun is loaded. 
2) Never point a gun at something you’re not willing to destroy. 
3) Make certain of your target and what’s beyond. 
4) Never put your finger on the trigger until you are on target. 
These simple rules do not change on a movie set. Typically guns used in movies are real guns, not “prop” guns. 
Guy Relford had Michael Grasso on his show back in October. Grasso has been the armorer on over 400 films. Very enlightening as to the workings of having firearms on a movie set. Oddly enough the podcast seems to have disappeared. I can’t find it online and it’s no longer in my library. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Britain’s Crossbow Rules in the Cross Hairs After Windsor Castle Breach

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/28/world/europe/windsor-castle-intruder.html

Quote

Regulations governing crossbows in Britain are receiving renewed attention after a man was apprehended with one on the grounds of Windsor Castle, where members of the royal family had gathered for the Christmas holiday.

We are considering options to strengthen controls on crossbows,” a spokesman for Britain’s Home Office said in a statement Tuesday, as part of a continuing review of rules on lethal weapons ordered this year by Priti Patel, the home secretary.

The renewed scrutiny comes days after an intruder breached the castle grounds on Christmas morning. A 19-year-old man was arrested “on suspicion of breach or trespass of a protected site and possession of an offensive weapon,” according to the police, while Queen Elizabeth II was on the premises with other members of the royal family.

The British monarch had celebrated the holiday at Windsor Castle instead of at her estate in Sandringham, Norfolk, as is her usual practice. Buckingham Palace said the decision was a “precautionary approach” because of the coronavirus pandemic.

The man arrested, whom the police declined to identify, did not enter any buildings or endanger the royal family. But police officers said they found a crossbow after searching him, adding that he was in the care of medical professionals receiving treatment for mental health issues.

Under existing legislation, crossbows can be purchased over the counter or on the internet by those over the age of 18. Owners do not need a license or certificate to operate the weapons and, unlike shotguns and firearms, the police do not have an official record of who owns them and how many are in circulation.

Detectives said they were reviewing a video as part of the investigation, the Metropolitan Police said in a statement on Monday, but declined to give further details.

Controls on weapons such as crossbows drew particular concern in 2018 after a British man broke into a neighbor’s home in East Yorkshire, shooting and killing him with a crossbow and injuring his pregnant partner. In a 2021 report investigating the death of the man, a coroner for the county asked top policing officials, including Ms. Patel, to review legislation regulating the purchase and possession of crossbows.

“Evidence was heard about the power and lethal capabilities of these weapons, as well as the fact that they are essentially silent,” the coroner, Professor Paul Marks, said in the report.

“In my opinion,” he added, “there is a risk that future deaths will occur unless action is taken.”

The Home Office said work reviewing the legislation was continuing after the episode in East Yorkshire, adding that it was already an offense to possess arrows, or possess offensive weapons in public spaces “without good reason or lawful authority.”

When crossbows are outlawed..........

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 6 months later...
1 hour ago, swordfish said:

SF is wondering how the news  is going to  report this  in the morning.  

National media typically operates:

A) Shooter uses a handgun, no real national attention. 
B) Shooter uses a modern semi-auto rifle, but is stopped by a good guy with a gun, will usually warrant a little national attention, just enough to let the folks know the shooter used an “assault” rifle. 
C) Shooter uses a modern semi-auto rifle and it plays out, CNN will be camped in the parking lot with round the clock coverage, pontificating, and live coverage of all the memorials. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WTG Fox 59......SF did not expect to see this headline.....

"Good guy with a gun shoots Bad guy with a gun BUT he broke the mall rules........?"

https://fox59.com/news/good-samaritan-with-a-gun-stopped-greenwood-park-mall-shooting-went-against-malls-code-of-conduct/

‘Good Samaritan’ with a gun stopped Greenwood Park Mall shooting, went against mall’s code of conduct

GREENWOOD, Ind. — While police are crediting a Bartholomew County man for shooting and killing a suspect in the Greenwood Park Mall shooting, mall policy states he should not have been carrying to begin with.

Greenwood Police Chief James Ison confirmed Sunday that the shooter was shot and killed by a man visiting the mall. The Good Samaritan, as police called him, was armed with a handgun.

“The real hero of the day was the citizen that was lawfully carrying a firearm in the food court and was able to stop the shooter almost as soon as he began,” Ison said.

Police say the 22-year-old from Bartholomew County had a legal gun permit. However, according to mall policy, the man should not have been carrying his handgun in the mall in the first place.

Last updated in April 2020, Simon Property Group states in its code of conduct that no weapons are allowed at their shopping centers. The group is the owner of the Greenwood Park Mall.

The property group has worked with Greenwood police for several planned security technology upgrades after recent incidents at the mall including two incidents where employees were held at gunpoint in the parking lot. These upgrades include license plate readers installed at mall entrances.

 

Despite not following the mall’s code of conduct, Greenwood Mayor Mark Myers says the man saved lives.

“Someone we are calling the ‘Good Samaritan’ was able to shoot the assailant and stop further bloodshed. This person saved lives tonight. On behalf of the City of Greenwood, I am grateful for his quick action and heroism in this situation.”

GREENWOOD MAYOR MARK MYERS

We reached out to Simon Properties Sunday evening for a statement about the shooting. A spokesperson declined to comment, instead referring us to Greenwood Police.

 

ALSO - WTF is a "Long-Gun Rifle"?

https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/17/us/indiana-greenwood-park-mall-shooting/index.html

In the Greenwood mall shooting, the gunman apparently used a long-gun rifle, Ison said, though law enforcement had not immediately recovered any weapons from the scene.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, swordfish said:

WTG Fox 59......SF did not expect to see this headline.....

"Good guy with a gun shoots Bad guy with a gun BUT he broke the mall rules........?"

https://fox59.com/news/good-samaritan-with-a-gun-stopped-greenwood-park-mall-shooting-went-against-malls-code-of-conduct/

‘Good Samaritan’ with a gun stopped Greenwood Park Mall shooting, went against mall’s code of conduct

GREENWOOD, Ind. — While police are crediting a Bartholomew County man for shooting and killing a suspect in the Greenwood Park Mall shooting, mall policy states he should not have been carrying to begin with.

Greenwood Police Chief James Ison confirmed Sunday that the shooter was shot and killed by a man visiting the mall. The Good Samaritan, as police called him, was armed with a handgun.

“The real hero of the day was the citizen that was lawfully carrying a firearm in the food court and was able to stop the shooter almost as soon as he began,” Ison said.

Police say the 22-year-old from Bartholomew County had a legal gun permit. However, according to mall policy, the man should not have been carrying his handgun in the mall in the first place.

Last updated in April 2020, Simon Property Group states in its code of conduct that no weapons are allowed at their shopping centers. The group is the owner of the Greenwood Park Mall.

The property group has worked with Greenwood police for several planned security technology upgrades after recent incidents at the mall including two incidents where employees were held at gunpoint in the parking lot. These upgrades include license plate readers installed at mall entrances.

 

Despite not following the mall’s code of conduct, Greenwood Mayor Mark Myers says the man saved lives.

“Someone we are calling the ‘Good Samaritan’ was able to shoot the assailant and stop further bloodshed. This person saved lives tonight. On behalf of the City of Greenwood, I am grateful for his quick action and heroism in this situation.”

GREENWOOD MAYOR MARK MYERS

We reached out to Simon Properties Sunday evening for a statement about the shooting. A spokesperson declined to comment, instead referring us to Greenwood Police.

 

ALSO - WTF is a "Long-Gun Rifle"?

https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/17/us/indiana-greenwood-park-mall-shooting/index.html

In the Greenwood mall shooting, the gunman apparently used a long-gun rifle, Ison said, though law enforcement had not immediately recovered any weapons from the scene.

IO knows people who were asked to leave a Simon Property because they were carrying handguns. 
It should be pointed out in Indiana there is no criminal law against carrying on properties that are otherwise legal to carry, but the owners post as no firearms. They can ask you to leave or disarm, at which point you either comply or you will be cited for trespassing. 
 

I was standing in line one day at the bank, guy in front of me has a giant knife in a sheath he’s carrying about five o’clock. He keeps fingering it and he appears to be tweaking to me. I keep moving to my left, then right to make sure I had a clean shot if he went for the knife. Guy finished his business and left. Teller says you see in a bit of hurry….I told her the story, she had no clue he had the knife but she was aware of his mental state. 
 

One of the local banks I frequent is posted. Manager asked me one day if I saw the sign, to which I replied: “yep, it clearly states no Berettas, and I lifted my shirt and said as you can see, I’m clearly not carrying a Beretta. He just laughed and went about his business. 
 

B51FD3BD-0DC2-4C2B-BA16-B56AF162130C.png

Edited by Impartial_Observer
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One Armed Man at an Indiana Mall Offered Better Protection Than 376 Cops in Uvalde

https://reason.com/2022/07/20/one-armed-man-at-an-indiana-mall-offered-better-protection-than-376-cops-in-uvalde/

Quote

The same day Texas legislators released a devastating report on indecision and failure among hundreds of police officers during the school shooting at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas, a single armed man ended an attack at Greenwood Park Mall in Greenwood, Indiana. It's impossible to avoid comparing the two incidents. Once again, taking responsibility for yourself and assisting others turns out to be a better idea than putting faith in the state.

"Greenwood leaders have used several titles to describe Elisjsha Dicken, the 22-year-old Indiana man who intervened in a mass shooting at the Greenwood Park Mall on Sunday night," write Ryan Martin, Tony Cook, and Dayeon Eom of the Indianapolis Star. "A hero. A good Samaritan, even. Gun-rights advocates have yet another: A good guy with a gun."

Assessments of the performance of 376 police officers at Robb Elementary School are less positive.

"At Robb Elementary, law enforcement responders failed to adhere to their active shooter training, and they failed to prioritize saving the lives of innocent victims over their own safety," according to the July 17 report from Texas legislators. "The first wave of responders to arrive included the chief of the school district police and the commander of the Uvalde Police Department SWAT team. Despite the immediate presence of local law enforcement leaders, there was an unacceptably long period of time before officers breached the classroom, neutralized the attacker, and began rescue efforts."

 

Dicken intervened within two minutes of the first shot by the 20-year-old murderer. Three innocent people still lost their lives, but the toll could have been much higher.

"The real hero of the day is the citizen that was lawfully carrying a firearm in that food court and was able to stop the shooter almost as soon as he began," Greenwood Police Chief Jim Ison told reporters.

By contrast, police officers in Uvalde dithered for at least 73 minutes as 19 children and two teachers were murdered.

"The law enforcement response to the attack at Robb Elementary on May 24 was an abject failure," commented Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) Director Steven McCraw. 

While the report on the Robb Elementary attack emphasized that "Uvalde CISD and its police department failed to implement their active shooter plan and failed to exercise command and control of law enforcement responding to the tragedy," in Indiana, Dicken had no special background. "Police said Dicken learned to shoot from his grandfather and that he had no military or police training," reports WTHR.

Dicken legally carried a pistol without a permit under a "constitutional carry" law that took effect July 1. Technically, he violated the mall's no-weapons policy, but the owners don't seem bothered. They have a statement on their website saying, in part: "We are grateful for the strong response of the first responders, including the heroic actions of the Good Samaritan who stopped the suspect."

The Indiana man was not the first armed regular person to stop a crime. In May, a woman shot a man who opened fire on a crowd in Charleston, West Virginia. 

"Instead of running from the threat, she engaged with the threat and saved several lives last night," Charleston Police Department Chief of Detectives Tony Hazelett commented at the time.

 

In 2020, a man with a pistol killed a gunwoman at a mall in Tulsa, Oklahoma. In 2019, church volunteers at West Freeway Church of Christ in Texas shot and killed a man who fired on the congregation. In 2014, a psychiatrist had to shoot a patient who attacked hospital workers in Pennsylvania. It's not difficult to find examples of regular people who successfully defend themselves and others. These reported incidents almost always involve shots fired; I personally know people who ended attacks without discharging a weapon, and then walked away without informing the police to avoid legal hassles.

Unfortunately, it's also easy to find examples of police failure. The "active shooter training" referenced in the Texas legislators' report was supposed to address earlier high-profile deficiencies in law-enforcement response. Police at Columbine in 1999 delayed for 47 deadly minutes. In 2018 in Parkland, Florida, they held off for 58 minutes "marked by no one taking charge, deputies dawdling, false information spreading, communications paralyzed and children stranded with nowhere to hide," according to the South Florida Sun Sentinel.

This doesn't mean that police always fail "to prioritize saving the lives of innocent victims over their own safety" in the words of the Uvalde report. There are good, dedicated cops out there. Nor does it mean that people taking responsibility for their own lives will always triumph: in 2021, Arvada, Colorado, police officers killed John Hurley after he shot a cop-killer from whom they had been hiding; Manhattan's chief prosecutor initially charged Jose Alba for defending himself from an assailant. But it's all too clear that government employees are unreliable protectors. If we encounter danger, we don't know when they'll appear, or how they'll respond. They don't even have a legal obligation to help us.

"Neither the Constitution, nor state law, impose a general duty upon police officers or other governmental officials to protect individual persons from harm — even when they know the harm will occur," commented Darren L. Hutchinson of the University of Florida School of Law, in 2018. "Police can watch someone attack you, refuse to intervene and not violate the Constitution."

In truth, government institutions are failing every test they face. Public schools lost support when they botched their response to the pandemic and became political battlegrounds. Public health authorities shed credibility with the public and the medical community through lies, contradictions, and ideologically convenient policies. Worse, "a majority of 57% say that the actions of the federal government over the past six months have hurt their family when it comes to their most important concern," finds the Monmouth University Polling Institute. That personal safety is subject to the same factors that cause government to bungle other roles should not be a surprise.

In response to government failure, many people are rediscovering faith in their own efforts for educating their children, keeping their families healthy, and much more. Carrying a weapon and being willing to protect yourself and others is an act of self-reliance, just like homeschooling. Asked earlier this month by Trafalgar Group pollsters, "what do you believe would best protect you and your family in the event of a mass shooting?" only 25.1 percent of respondents answered "local police"; 41.8 percent chose "armed citizens."

Taking some responsibility for your life doesn't guarantee success, but Americans are realizing that it's a better bet than placing all your faith in government-employed strangers who often aren't up to the job.

 

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it’s safe to say, as details come out, this young man, pulled off some Dirty Harry level stuff. 
Had little to no cover when the shooter started. 
Engaged the shooter starting at about 40 yards 

Continued to close the distance between him and the shooter again, with little to no cover AND way out gunned. 

Hit the shooter eight times out of 10 rounds fired. 

Cleared bystanders while engaged with the shooter. 
 

•••OPINION***
This young man, was in the right place at the right time and willing and able to do what had to be done. With NONE of the training, experience, firepower, and resources that the officers in Uvalde had. 
 

This shooting has illuminated several points central to the firearm debate in this country. 
Laws/policies will be ignored. 
The ability to defend oneself is a fundamental right that should not be infringed. 
Hitting an astounding 80% of shots taken, the hero fired his gun 10 times to stop the shooter. What if there were two shooters? What if he was wearing body armor? What if he only hit him two out of ten times? 10 round capacity mag laws only inhibit law abiding citizens from defending yourself. If you want a “why” this is pretty conclusive. 
This was over in 15 seconds. Think about that very carefully, hundreds of lives were altered/ended by an event that last 15 seconds. Imagine your 22 year old self standing in line with your girlfriend to get a cookie…….

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Impartial_Observer said:

I think it’s safe to say, as details come out, this young man, pulled off some Dirty Harry level stuff. 
Had little to no cover when the shooter started. 
Engaged the shooter starting at about 40 yards 

Continued to close the distance between him and the shooter again, with little to no cover AND way out gunned. 

Hit the shooter eight times out of 10 rounds fired. 

Cleared bystanders while engaged with the shooter. 
 

•••OPINION***
This young man, was in the right place at the right time and willing and able to do what had to be done. With NONE of the training, experience, firepower, and resources that the officers in Uvalde had. 
 

This shooting has illuminated several points central to the firearm debate in this country. 
Laws/policies will be ignored. 
The ability to defend oneself is a fundamental right that should not be infringed. 
Hitting an astounding 80% of shots taken, the hero fired his gun 10 times to stop the shooter. What if there were two shooters? What if he was wearing body armor? What if he only hit him two out of ten times? 10 round capacity mag laws only inhibit law abiding citizens from defending yourself. If you want a “why” this is pretty conclusive. 
This was over in 15 seconds. Think about that very carefully, hundreds of lives were altered/ended by an event that last 15 seconds. Imagine your 22 year old self standing in line with your girlfriend to get a cookie…….

SF has many years of handgun practice, and being proficient, even I question my ability to engage a rifle shooter with a handgun from 30-40 yards.  I guess you never know unless you are actually forced into that situation.  All I know is I can hit a target pretty effectively at about 20 - 30 feet, but next time at the range I'll move the target to 40 yards and see if I can even hit the paper........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
On 7/20/2022 at 7:59 AM, Impartial_Observer said:

I think it’s safe to say, as details come out, this young man, pulled off some Dirty Harry level stuff. 
Had little to no cover when the shooter started. 
Engaged the shooter starting at about 40 yards 

Continued to close the distance between him and the shooter again, with little to no cover AND way out gunned. 

Hit the shooter eight times out of 10 rounds fired. 

Cleared bystanders while engaged with the shooter. 
 

•••OPINION***
This young man, was in the right place at the right time and willing and able to do what had to be done. With NONE of the training, experience, firepower, and resources that the officers in Uvalde had. 
 

This shooting has illuminated several points central to the firearm debate in this country. 
Laws/policies will be ignored. 
The ability to defend oneself is a fundamental right that should not be infringed. 
Hitting an astounding 80% of shots taken, the hero fired his gun 10 times to stop the shooter. What if there were two shooters? What if he was wearing body armor? What if he only hit him two out of ten times? 10 round capacity mag laws only inhibit law abiding citizens from defending yourself. If you want a “why” this is pretty conclusive. 
This was over in 15 seconds. Think about that very carefully, hundreds of lives were altered/ended by an event that last 15 seconds. Imagine your 22 year old self standing in line with your girlfriend to get a cookie…….

Spot on.

On 7/20/2022 at 9:03 AM, swordfish said:

SF has many years of handgun practice, and being proficient, even I question my ability to engage a rifle shooter with a handgun from 30-40 yards.  I guess you never know unless you are actually forced into that situation.  All I know is I can hit a target pretty effectively at about 20 - 30 feet, but next time at the range I'll move the target to 40 yards and see if I can even hit the paper........

I've thought of doing this myself.  The only thing stopping me is how embarrassed I'll be when my buddies see a clean sheet after emptying the magazine.

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...