Las Vegas Shooting, CCW carrier may have been involved
- Thread starter 12Roses
- Start date
BC1
,
A significant number of bugs are addicted to drugs and alcohol. Many were born with fetal alcohol syndrome. As a result they had poor frontal lobe development leading to poor impulse control. They act without reason.
Nick Burkhardt
New member
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
Many of us like Mr Wilcox have a desire to act rather than wait and see. The lesson I take from this is to carry a back up gun to arm your friend so they can watch your six.
Many of us like Mr Wilcox have a desire to act rather than wait and see. The lesson I take from this is to carry a back up gun to arm your friend so they can watch your six.
First, a survey is not a study. Second none of the survey questions you listed address the issue. Trying to determine whether thiert intended victims were armed is a lot different from the assertion that a criminal seeks to commit crimes in gun free zones. In fact, the Las Vegas shooting is one in which the criminals did try to determine whether their victims were armed because they were looking for armed victims.
And Lott's famous assertion that no mass shootings ever occurred on premises that were not gun free has been shot down by the mass shooting in Arizona and Lakewood.
In fact, lakewood was another example where the criminal tried to determine if the victims were armed because the criminal was looking for those specific armed victims.
At best, the survey (not a study) stated that only 40% of the criminals were dissuaded from committing the crime because of an armed victim. That means the overwhelming majority, 60% were not dissuaded by an armed victim.
It is utter nonsense to claim that criminals are drawn to gun free zones because they are gun free.
Wow, who would have guessed that the Lakewood shooter was looking for people with guns to shoot instead of looking for police officers to shoot? I sure would not have come to that conclusion (nor would anyone else with any common sense).
BC1
,
It's more than a survey. You have to actually read the results in order to opine. Yer overthinking it.
CharlesMorrison
Banned
Rhino
New member
Uh, genius, if you want to study how criminals think, you have to survey them. And you really made it through law school? Did they grade on a curve?
.
Please point us to where Lott ever made that assertion. The Lakewood incident was more of an assassination than a mass shooting. The victims were deliberately targeted. I would classify Las Vegas the same way. There were no targets of opportunity.
whodat2710
New member
I beg to differ. His intent was admirable, he was however an unfortunate victim of "I have a gun and I'm gonna save the day" syndrome. Had he succeeded he could have been considered a hero.
-
From everything I've read, the only shot fired in Walmart initially was one round in the air while the idiots said something to the effect that the revolution was starting. They were then concerned with the cops that would eventually be storming the store, and no report says they ever threatened the customers. A "hero" is someone who saves the day or attempts to save others (success or failure). Someone that rushes into an unknown situation willy-nilly might be considered a hero if it is on the field of battle (i.e. storming a machine gun nest at Normandy).
-
I know hindsight is 20/20, but training should include situational awareness. If the idiots were not actually pointing the gun at a customer then hide and watch. He was at the register, stay there and duck. Draw and observe. I guarantee that anyone near the idiots was hitting the deck. Shoot from cover if necessary. Rushing to "confront" the idiots is just stupid.
BluesStringer
Les Brers
Obviously his tactics and SA was lacking, but that is the only criticism I'm willing to level at the guy. There is no doubt that his heart was in the right place. Every individual has to make the decision for themselves whether losing their life is worth the price of getting involved with trying to intervene between innocents and criminals. For you, his ineffective actions supports whatever argument you can logically draw from them. For others, it might support the argument that they need more training, or it might stay in the back of their mind if they found themselves in an active shooter situation and inspire a more effective response. Either way, you're not wrong and they aren't right or vice versa. Neither was Mr. Wilcox wrong for trying as far as I'm concerned. I wish for his and his family's sake that he had been more aware before advancing, but I'm not going to criticize him. The same mistake could've happened if it was one of his family members being threatened and his actions fit within your own criteria for drawing and advancing, right?
Blues
tcox4freedom
New member
I think this is the most up to date article yet- (It also contain a CC video of the last few seconds)
AOL.com Article - Cop killers had 3 earlier talks with Vegas police
-
AOL.com Article - Cop killers had 3 earlier talks with Vegas police
-
BC1
,
A couple of definitions from the mind of BC1.
.
Bug = Nut-job criminal type. Includes the insane, tweakers, meth-heads and general crazies.
Rats = hoodies, hood-rats, home rats, roaches, urban wildlife, nocturnal critters, porch critters, etc.
Huckalero = A person who displays unsafe handling and shooting practices.
CharlesMorrison
Banned
Thank you sir!
I thought it meant "back up gun" and thought that is what you meant but it didn't fit the narrative of your reply.
Thank you for clearing it up for me.
Sent from behind Enemy Lines.
I thought it meant "back up gun" and thought that is what you meant but it didn't fit the narrative of your reply.
Thank you for clearing it up for me.
Sent from behind Enemy Lines.
whodat2710
New member
He was not wrong for trying, but I can't think of him as a "hero" for acting hastily without knowing the situation. Propagating him as a hero might do more harm than good by prompting others to get into situations they shouldn't. If bystanders, his family or not, had been directly threatened in front of him my answer would be different (whether he succeeded or not) but this was not the case.
tcox4freedom
New member
Sorry whodat- But, what else did he need to know?
If someone comes into any place I am and shoots a gun in any direction and begins yelling at everybody, I will believe my life is in danger! It matters not that the person fires a shot into the ceiling because in the very next nano second he could start shooting everybody he sees.
The fact is; the person has already shown themselves willing to use a firearm to harm others. I think any reasonable person would see that this was indeed a THREAT to use deadly force by the BG. (Why else would he fire a firearm in the first place if it were not to be meant as a threat of deadly force?)
The fault I see (if any) was not recognizing the female BG. But, I would also bet that even a trained LEO may have made the very same mistake under the circumstances.
-
BluesStringer
Les Brers
You will not find many, if any, instances of me using the word "hero" under many, if any, circumstances. Everybody who wants to serve and/or help others is not a hero to me. Service to our fellow man is obedience to God to me. There are instances where it requires courage, or perhaps a conscientious nature that many folks just can't muster, but in any case, successful or not, when applied with a good heart, I don't have any criticisms of folks who advance selflessly in the face of danger.
Perhaps I should've quoted only the question that you posed when you asked, "Since he was the only non-cop killed, shouldn't he have just stayed the hell out of it until he was more aware of what was going on?" That's really the part I was attempting to respond to. I left the sentence with the word "hero" in the part of your post that I quoted only because you yourself put it in quotation marks, suggesting to me that you weren't using the word in its literal sense. Now it appears you meant it more literally than the quotation marks suggested to me, so please accept this post as a clarification of the gist of what I was attempting to respond to.
In short, yeah, more situational awareness is always better, but that's the extent of criticism I have for the guy. "Shouldn't he have just stayed the hell out of it" seems a bit harsh and overly critical to me. He made his decision, it was his decision to make, and I won't second guess his decision just because his selfless effort failed.
Blues
Rhino
New member
That's inflammatory speculation that's 100% contradictory to the known facts. There is absolutely zero evidence to indicate Wilcox was in any way attempting to play cop, motivated by ego, or acting in any way akin to a brazen, unthinking or immature person as your comment suggests. There is however, plenty of evidence to suggest he was a selfless person, acting at the time in what he felt was the defense of others in danger. You mention such things as the perpetrator pointing his gun at customers as a prerequisite for action by Wilcox, but you assume that never happened even though you were never there. You also mentioned that Wilcox rushing to confront "the idiots" was stupid, even though you have no idea if he rushed anywhere. You apparently don't even know he was only looking at one "idiot", not two, so how can you pass judgement on all these other things you know nothing of? It's up to every person to decide whether they'll use their gun to defend themselves and their family, or if they'd be willing to defend the lives of others. But to simply assume that someone else coming to the aid of others is acting rashly or out of some form of ego trip is incredibly illogical and unfair, and quite frankly it's far more unthinking and immature than the actions of Wilcox were that day. If you decide to defend only yourself or your family and not others, should we just assume it's because you're a coward? I for one wouldn't do that because I know how unlikely it would be for any concealed carrier to act that way. I would assume you didn't act because there were very good tactical reasons for it. And when a citizen does come to the aid of others, I do the same thing. I assume there were good tactical reasons for it, because just as before, I know how unlikely it would be for it to be the other way around. In the case of Wilcox, we don't have to rely only on assumptions. We have the statements of people who know him telling us what a selfless person he was, and we have the testimony of his friend who was with him at the time telling us definitively that he was attempting to come to the aid of others. You've maligned and impugned a good man that in no way deserved it. I hope your shoes are clean so you don't get too much dirt in your mouth.
whodat2710
New member
tcox, rhino and blues - did you read the article I posted? "hero" was in quotations because that was the headline of the friggin story. I am in no way saying he was a bad guy, read again:
Link Removed
and
Shooters carried arsenal, supplies into Sunday rampage | Las Vegas Review-Journalwhich was linked in the first article.
The part I am talking about (my thoughts in blue)
Now please read the story I posted:
Link Removed
and
Shooters carried arsenal, supplies into Sunday rampage | Las Vegas Review-Journalwhich was linked in the first article.
The part I am talking about (my thoughts in blue)
