That's pretty interesting stuff. Unfortunately it has absolutely nothing to do with the Denny's scenario. The business was being robbed. The gun owner was not being attacked.
Denny's "no guns allowed" signs seem to be working.
- Thread starter Rick246
- Start date
That's pretty interesting stuff. Unfortunately it has absolutely nothing to do with the Denny's scenario. The business was being robbed. The gun owner was not being attacked.
And, by the time you wait and see IF the bad guy, who already has gun in hand, is going to start shooting or not, if the bad guy does start shooting, you are now that much more behind the power curve, especially if you have to put down your cell phone to draw your gun!
Exactly right- I agree. If the BG is shooting I would seek cover and/or concealment if available and return fire. Also, if things develop into a hostage situation I'd fire regardless of whether the BG fired first or not.
However, the gun owner was under imminent threat of grave bodily harm or death, as was everyone else in the restaurant.
So you would endager everyone around you and endanger any hostages in order to return fire. Nice job, RAMBO.
He may or may not have been. The only people who know for sure are the people who were there.
Now you're just being a jackass and you know it.
But.....I'll bite: What's your answer to that scenario?
Here's the deal. Two guys walk into a nearly deserted Denny's restaurant at 5:50am carrying firearms. Joe citizen now has a little bit less stress and a little bit more time to evaluate the situation. Are there bystanders in the line of fire? Is there cover or at least concealment available? The criminals are likely to be most concerned about getting what they can quickly and quietly and getting the heck out of there. The all powerful "element of surprise" is in favor of the customer with the gun.
The customer with the gun has no idea what will happen next. The criminals may take the money and run. The criminals may get the money and shoot all the witnesses. A cop or anybody else might walk through the door and the criminals might start shooting. A siren might be heard in the distance and they criminals might grab a bystander for a hostage. The situation could change in any number of ways in the matter of a split second.
If the situation does change, the customer with the gun cannot possibly predict how. That is why it is vitally important to take defensive action during the time frame that the customer with the gun has available while the situation remains as evaluted. Cover and/or concealment availalbe. Clear shot available. Criminals not expecting to be fired upon. Chances are much greater for a successful defensive attack when the defender has a full evaluation of the situation, and the situation is currently stable.
Once "all hell breaks loose" the situation will be changing every fraction of a second. It is just not tactically sound to wait until the attack is in full swing before beginning a defensive attack. Especially in the restaurant robbery scenario where once the initial entry is made and no immediate resistence is met, it is very likely that the criminals were expecting no resistence to be offered.
Once the criminals start shooting the primary goal becomes seeking cover rather than returning fire. Sure, return fire on the way to obtaining cover, but when being fired upon the first and primary goal becomes to gain safe cover from the enemy fire and if safe cover can be obtained without returning fire, it is better to do so. Let the criminals shoot their bullets while you are safely behind cover. That increases the chance they will run out of rounds before you do.
You contradict yourself, Rich_S. You say you would not defend a perfect stranger, then a few posts later you say you will start shooting if hostages are taken. The idea of returning fire immediately when being fired upon is best left to the RAMBO movies.
It is most tactically sound to begin a defensive attack before the aggressors expect it, and before the aggressor's attack is in full motion.
BTW, the law in Washington state completely justifies the customer using deadly force in the Denny's scenario:
RCW 9A.16.050
Homicide — By other person — When justifiable.
Homicide is also justifiable when committed either:
(1) In the lawful defense of the slayer, or his or her husband, wife, parent, child, brother, or sister, or of any other person in his or her presence or company, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury to the slayer or to any such person, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished;
RCW 9A.16.050
Homicide — By other person — When justifiable.
Homicide is also justifiable when committed either:
(1) In the lawful defense of the slayer, or his or her husband, wife, parent, child, brother, or sister, or of any other person in his or her presence or company, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury to the slayer or to any such person, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished;
longslide10
New member
I agree with NavyLCDR, why carry it then? Suppose you were walking through a city park late at night and you came across a woman getting raped, beaten and threatened with a knife what would you do, walk on by because it's no immediate threat to you and you are worried about a lawsuit and then come to learn the woman dies later from a knife wound you could've prevented or would you step in a save the woman's life because you had the means to stop a violent act. You could in effect shoot the bastard in the leg to stop the action and then make a citizens arrest etc. I believe as citizens legally carrying concealed weapons we all may be obliged (within reason and using good judgement) to help those whose lives may be in danger and if you are not willing to do that you may want to reconsider carrying a weapon.
I said I'd fire in a hostage situation. Try to follow along here. I'm in Dennys. The BG is taking hostages in Denny's during the robbery. Can you see where this is going or do I need to continue on here?
It is most tactically sound to avoid discharging a firearm in public whenever possible. Statiscally how many rounds do you suppose hit their intended target when fired from a handgun in a SHTF scenario?
And you also said that you would not shoot to protect strangers. So, no, I don't see where you are going, except to the land of contradiction.
Fact: Less than 8% of the
time does a citizen wound
his or her attacker, and in
less than one in a thousand
instances is the attacker
killed.
And, of course, you contradict yourself again, Rich_S because you state in your posts that you would wait UNTIL the SHTF to begin defensive action! I say your chances of successful defense are greater if you take action before all of the SHTF.
I thought about answering your question until I saw the "shoot him in the leg" comment. BTW: only swarn police officers are obligated to take action.
The goal of carrying a gun is to enable survival of a criminal attack. The best chance of surviving a criminal attack is to render the criminal unable to attack or continue to attack. The best chances of stopping the criminal occur in the earliest possible stages of the criminal attack.
The longer you wait, the less the chance of survival becomes, IF the S should HTF. I am not willing to gamble that if I wait, the S won't HTF. Too many people have died waiting to see the outcome of a violent crime situation.
The longer you wait, the less the chance of survival becomes, IF the S should HTF. I am not willing to gamble that if I wait, the S won't HTF. Too many people have died waiting to see the outcome of a violent crime situation.
Another false statement. Sworn police officers are not legally obligated to take action.
Fact: The courts have consistently ruled that the police do not have an obligation to
protect individuals. In Warren v. District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department,
444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App. 1981), the court stated: `… courts have without exception
concluded that when a municipality or other governmental entity undertakes to furnish
police services, it assumes a duty only to the public at large and not to individual
members of the community.' Well, except for politicians whom receive taxpayerfinanced
bodyguards.
I'd shoot if I were in danger of being taken hostage. Get it now? Wow....
If I'm in a hostage situation is that not SHTF territory?
That's right- most rounds fired miss which is why the percentages of the attacker being wounded are low. Where do you suppose the rounds go?
I love these firearms forums!
So at what point was the gun owner in this Denny's attacked?
Nightmare45
NRA LIFE MEMBER
BTW in Texas you may act in the situation which took place in Denny's, I will protect myself and my family by cover and removing the threat. Oh wait why not just explain to the BG it is against the law to rob the place, let me know how that works for you or you could finish your breakfast while waiting the 15-20 minutes for the cops to arrive also go ahead and hand the BG your weapon.
In Massachusetts you may also act in that situation. That doesn't mean that you should.
"According to the witness, the tow truck driver pulled his gun on the suspects and a shootout ensued."
Link Removed
You pull your gun, the BG opens fire because you pulled your gun, and one of your family members gets killed because you pulled your gun. Let me know how that works out for you. Will they be able to finish their breakfast? The gun owner here wasn't able to stop the BGs. They shot it out with him and got away. I suppose you're a better shot though- right? But of course you are. BTW: why are you asking me how it would work out if I told the bad guy robbery was illegal or handed him my weapon? Where did I suggest that would be a good idea? Please quote that post.
New Threads
-
-
" Tactical-World.net" Possible Fraud- Started by NotTwoShure
- Replies: 5
-
-
-
Look Who's Smiling Now! - Penis Enlargement
- Started by Rajirajii2515
- Replies: 0
