CLICK HERE TO WIN A FREE GUN

Man Open Carrying NOT robbed

Mainsail

Member
From VCDL:

 

Wow sounds like one hell of a fight. I think that is a great example of why you shouldnt be carrying a single action revolver for self defense. Ofcourse, one reason would be because the trigger broke, but this shoot-out shows that the rule of 3's (3 feet, 3 shots, 3 seconds) doesnt always apply. The GO is lucky the BG only had a revolver too. How long would it have taken him to reload one round at a time after firing all 6 under extreme stress? I'm willing to bet he may at least move to a DA revolver after this, and maybe some speed loaders.
 
The Good Guy here does not know "give up" outstanding performance by an OC'er that saved the lives of several people including his own.

Should the need arise, we should all hope to aquitt ourselves as well as he did. They should present him with a medal, or something....maybe a brand new 1911...or a high cap .40 cal. Sounds like he could use one in his neigborhood.

As my Aussie friends would say "Good on ya mate".

Steve
 
Last edited:

I appreciate the line: "Evil exists and so does Good." Too often all we ever hear from media is how America is just full of BAD! There are still more good people in America than there are bad!

The take away for CCW or OC'rs, is most definitely: buy and carry a quality gun! This sort of life-and-death scenario is the very reason for being armed in the first place! You'll want the very best firearm in your hands if you ever find yourself in a firefight! And, rehearse! Practice shooting... practice drawing... be confident enough in your skill to be ready for come what may.

The importance of good training has been discussed in a number of other posts.
 
The GO's mistake was giving a warning. "When in doubt, empty your magazine--" Murphy's Laws of Combat
 
Last edited:
The GO's mistake was giving a warning. "When in doubt, empty your magazine--" Murphy's Laws of Combat
+1
No warning. The BG displayed his bad intentions by shooting the store owner. Why give this P.O.S. a warning or a chance to kill you. Stop the threat immediately. Most of us think it is cold-hearted to just outright shoot someone and will hesitate. This hesitation can get you killed. I am not a gun fanatic but I know there are times when extreme violence must be met with extreme violence. If you are not willing to do that, sell your guns.
 

Exactly.

"The GO yelled for the BG to drop his gun as the GO drew his gun. "

That's a WARNING-- and a mistake; the GO was lucky that the BG wasn't working with someone else-- and criminals usually DO work in teams.

Another Murphy's Law of Combat, is that your enemies won't count off, so you never know where they are; the GO is just LUCKY that his warning, wasn't met with him getting shot in the back or side by an accomplice-- for all he knew, the teenage boy could have been an inside agent.

The PROPER response for the GO, would have been to shoot the BG through the head, and then get to a defensive position (e.g. down behind the counter) and look for other BG's, while also trying to save the store-owner from dying, calling 911 etc. Usually when shooting starts, the other BG's will either shoot back or bolt-- or both.

As for being "cold-blooded," no one with a brain would think that, once the shooting had already started-- and so it was just STUPID to pull the Lone Ranger stuff of "stop shooting, or I'll blast the gun out of your hand."
This ain't a western!
 
Everyone reacts differently to a situation. He tried to stop the bad guy with a threat, but was unsuccessful.
Had that worked, he might have been able to disarm the bad guy and keep him under watch while someone else tended to the store owner and/or called 911.

I don't think there's an easy answer in a situation like this, but I will lean toward the thoughts of: "He just killed someone! I could be next, or anyone else here could be next. I'm not going to wait, this guy is history..." Even so, I don't know if that would be my instant reaction.

I'd say that telling someone shouldn't carry if they aren't willing to execute someone on the spot is overly harsh. This guy saved lives. The only fatality, indeed, the only casualty other than the bad guy was cause by the bad guy before any reaction could take place. I'd say that's about as good as it gets.
 
Now i have to ask. If someone comes in and shoots someone right off the bat. Would you really have to tell them to drop it before you shot them. It seems clear that if he had shot the BG the gun battle would have not taken place?
 
I'd say that telling someone shouldn't carry if they aren't willing to execute someone on the spot is overly harsh.
"Stop the threat immediately" does not translate to "execute someone on the spot." There are plenty of examples where telling someone "stop or I'll shoot" or "drop your gun" has had tragic results. First let me say that I am not advocating immediately pulling the trigger every time you draw your weapon but there examples like this where it is necessary. When you give a warning to someone who just shot somebody without provocation and he has the very real, very immediate potential to do it again you are telling him he has the tactical advantage because you are reluctant to do what he is willing to do and that is to pull the trigger without hesitating. That is not an execution, it is stopping the threat.
 
Everyone reacts differently to a situation.
Everyone reacts the way they train-- and some ways are better than others.

He tried to stop the bad guy with a threat, but was unsuccessful.

Because that's one of the worse ways.

Had that worked, he might have been able to disarm the bad guy and keep him under watch while someone else tended to the store owner and/or called 911.
As he would, if he had emptied his magazine-- with the difference that it would have worked.
However if the warning had worked, then the BG's accomplice could still have shot the GO, thus precluding the above as well.
You say that the BG didn't have an accomplice? That's 20/20 hindsight.


Because you didn't train with a particular reaction.
Well here's the best one: if you have a clear shot, TAKE IT.

I'd say that telling someone shouldn't carry if they aren't willing to execute someone on the spot is overly harsh.
But if you carry, then you SHOULD train yourself to shoot someone on the spot. You don't have to execute, just shoot staight and deadly-- the bullets will do the reast.

This guy saved lives. The only fatality, indeed, the only casualty other than the bad guy was cause by the bad guy before any reaction could take place. I'd say that's about as good as it gets.

If you believe in pressing your luck-- and as Murphy's law says, "if anything can go wrong, it will."
That's why Murphy's Laws of Combat say "when in doubt, empty your magazine."

Now i have to ask. He someone comes in and shoots someone right off the bat. Would you really have to tell them to drop it before you shot them. It seems clear that if he had shot the BG the gun battle would have not taken place?

Yep, I'd tell them to drop it-- and if they didn't, then I'd shoot the gun out of their hand, jump on my horse and let out a hearty "Hiyo SILVER, AWAY!" and ride off with my faithful indian sidekick Tonto smoking a peace-pipe.

The moral is, THIS AIN'T A WESTERN-- IT'S REALITY. Empty your magazine, and shoot to kill.
 

That's what i was getting at people watch way to much tv/movies. As you can see here doing so will not only endanger your self but everyone in the store when a full on gun battle starts. I have no idea about the rest of you but i don't know if i would be able to shoot a spinning moving target before he gets off a shot at me or someone else. I think the only time i would tell someone to drop it would be if they had a knife or a baseball bat. But if someone walks in with a 12G ot a Mac 10 or any gun i think i would wait to see what happens and how he acts. If he comes in shooting and shoots someone i would shoot them. But if they came in acted cool and got the money and left instead of endangering my self and others by starting a gun battle or by shooting him. I would study them and be the best witness i could be for the police.
 
That's based on a level of trust that the "calm, cool and collected criminal" is ok with leaving witnesses that could potentially ID him to/for the police.

I trust criminals with my life about as much as I trust the gov't with my life... oh wait. Redundant statement.
 

Bingo. There HAVE been cases of criminals who simply decide that they don't want any witnesses, and so they just start shooting even after they've gotten their victims TIED UP.

Criminals aren't the most long-term thinkers in the world-- in fact they tend to be IMMEDIATE thinkers who act on the spur of the moment, and react to immediate circumstances. That's why they ARE criminals, i.e. since virtually anyone can tell you that ALL criminals get caught eventually; and so committing a crime, is the same as going to jail.

But they commit crimes anyway-- NOT because they think they're never going to get caught, but simply because their brains simply don't think that far ahead. So it's entirely possible that they'll rob first, and think about what to do with witnesses later-- and then shoot; or they might simply shoot first.
 
Thier's a lot of talk here about how the go warned the bg first, which resulted in a gun battle. No one knows exactly how he or she would react in a situation like that, even if you train for a situation like that it still doesn't mean you would shoot the bg in the back with out a warning. It's really easy to speak in he should of's , but you werent thiere, and i think he did just fine.
 
Sure, the GO made some mistakes, but in the end it all worked out. Everyone deserving of the air they breathe is still here. Hopefully he'll learn from the situation and fortunately for us, we can all learn from it too.

+1 for law abiding citizens with guns.
 
having been on the receiving end of a robbery I cannot complain that the Gun owner helped clean up the environment a little bit, so he did not do the perfect text thing no one is perfect.
 


Good argument...
 

In the case of LEO if the BG shot first you can bet the LEO would have fired at the BG with little or no warning to stop anyone else from being harmed or killed (That's what they are trained to do). In that situation I would have drawn and fired since the initial action of the BG was to shoot. I'm sure the witnesses in the store and the store owner would have gotten the story right. And to think there are people out there who believe that we (armed citizens) should not have the right to keep and bear arms... Well.. Score one for the “Guy in the White Cowboy Hat”...:thank_you2:
 
Email