Hero mom saves the day killing gunman outside school

originally posted by: Outlier13

originally posted by: subfab
a reply to: Outlier13

i'm pro 2nd amendment.

but a gun in the hands of an untrained person is just as dangerous as the attacker.
this woman was trained and had experience in the field. this is not the same as a concealed carry citizen.


in my opinion, people need to be trained if they are going to carry in public.

Not 100% true. Some of the least well trained people who carry guns are police officers. I'm not LEO and I have quite a few LEO friends who regularly come to me for training. This is concealed carry too. Everyone I know personally who carries concealed trains on a regular basis. Come to think of it I have never known anyone who carries concealed to not train regularly. Even something as little as 30 minutes a month at the range is enough to keep the edge honed.

This statement is totally false. The fact that police have terrible records of marksmanship prove this. In fact in many places they hit innocent bystanders as or more often than the perp. This has been exposed in many shooting journals. NYC is a prime example and also why trigger weights in service side arms are so heavy.

As a competition shooter myself I can tell you 30 min a month isn't close to enough. As a former ncaa wrestler and judoka competitor I can tell you it is absolutely necessary to learn to control adrenaline dumps. Control breathing and calm down in combat. If I don't train weekly I dont do well in three gun races. Heck I don't do well in standard target shooting past 15 yards with a sidearm without at least twice a week. Now add a heavy weighted trigger.

Stress shooting takes extensive practise and is a serious problem in law enforcement. As is being in shape which adds to heart rate problems etc.

Hand to hand and marksmanship are two serious issues that law enforcement needs work on.

Ccl are not centered on marksmanship but rather very basic safety and legal aspects of carrying. I live in a very libeta state but there is no carry law. Anyone can carry who meets the age requirement. So I wouldn't say it's all liberals.

Many cc guns have extremely short barrels which adds to inaccuracy.

bearingarms.com...

www.officer.com...

originally posted by: TheLotLizard

originally posted by: Im2keul

originally posted by: TheLotLizard
99.9999999999% of conceal carry owners would be too cowardly to do anything.

And the fact that she was almost shot herself shows how stupidly she reacted. If he would have pointed his attention tthen her.2 seconds earlier and saw her going through her purse he would have gotten her first. And she was a trained person.

Putting an average citizen in this situation they would have gotten shot 9 times out of 10.

I won't disagree that many with a ccw/chl would have the nerve if confronted with a similar situation.
However, I may disagree with your stats. There are many that continue their journey beyond the ccw/chl to prepare for such situations.

I understand but I’m talking about in this exact situation 9/10. Maybe they hesitated on taking off the safety, dead. Maybe they didn’t have a bullet in the chamber,dead. What if they telegraphed too much that they were going for a gun, dead.

Sure it’s what if’s but carrying is not as easy as it sounds. There are countless variables to take into account that could cost you your life, or others.

I’m not against carrying I’m just hesitant on every tom,dick, and sally saying that “if this were me in the situation he would be dead” because they almost seem too eager and too eager to make deadly mistakes.

THATS what scares me about concealed carry.

Oh my god you are right! Everyone throw your guns away fast! You might hit the safety a split second too slow! So it's much wiser to give yourself 0% of survival rather than a 10% (according to you...) to hit that safety quick enough...

That's the thing with people like you. Always running away from responsibility. Yeah if you have that gun and choose to use it in a life threatening situation, then YES, you're gonna have to learn to get that safety quickly enough alright? That's just the way it is! Boohoo!

Nobody is forcing you to pull that gun Every time you see a crime! If you are so petrified that you might not have time, then DON'T! And it will be just as though you didn't have the gun. See how easy it is? It's called being responsible for your own self. Making the right decision, and dealing with the consequences if you don't.

So your plan is just put your head between your knees until the other adults with guns show up? And pray they don't shoot you or your family by mistake?

Will you just stick you fingers in your ears and go "la la la la I can't hear you" and hope the bad guys go away?



So where are all the news reports of people getting blown away by criminals as they were reaching for their gun or fiddling with the safety?

Other than gang wars all I see every day is unarmed people being blasted to smithereens. So it's really frustrating for someone like you to say "let's remain unarmed like all those dead people! why? because! You might not get your safety fast enough..."

WTF? Are you kidding me!?

How much actual gun training do you think cops go through? How difficult do you think it is to learn? Are cops human?

Do cops ever not get their safety fast enough?
Do they ever accidentally shoot the wrong person?
Maybe they are also not capable of properly handling a firearm. Maybe we should take them away from them too, and just leave ALL the power to the criminals? After all, an accident or mistake MIGHT happen.
In fact, it's bound to. It's only a matter of time until the next one happens.

a reply to: luthier

We are not talking about competition shooting, just being able to hit a guy right in front of you is good enough to stop most violent crimes. If they are too far, move closer until you feel confident. Seeing someone moving toward you while shouting "GET THE F out of here!", with a gun fixed on your position, will let you know this person is serious.

You act like every criminal is gonna battle it out with you to the death just for the hell of it. Most are cowards and they assume nobody around is armed cause usually nobody is. They will likely run if they see you with your gun already aimed at them. They don't want to turn a robbery or home invasion into a murder charge. Of course there are a lot of stupid people out there.

But if they are stupid enough to kill someone just because, how much training do you think They have had with their weapon lately?

You wanna talk about people not being trained enough to face off against a bad guy? That bad guy is likely a loser with no brain, that's why he ended up in a life of crime. He's probably either whacked out on a drug or having addiction withdrawals. And they probably owned their gun less than a week or two.

So, according to you, unless they have been training every week, we have nothing to worry about. They won't even be able to hit us.

originally posted by: 3n19m470
a reply to: luthier

We are not talking about competition shooting, just being able to hit a guy right in front of you is good enough to stop most violent crimes. If they are too far, move closer until you feel confident. Seeing someone moving toward you while shouting "GET THE F out of here!", with a gun fixed on your position, will let you know this person is serious.

You act like every criminal is gonna battle it out with you to the death just for the hell of it. Most are cowards and they assume nobody around is armed cause usually nobody is. They will likely run if they see you with your gun already aimed at them. They don't want to turn a robbery or home invasion into a murder charge. Of course there are a lot of stupid people out there.

But if they are stupid enough to kill someone just because, how much training do you think They have had with their weapon lately?

You wanna talk about people not being trained enough to face off against a bad guy? That bad guy is likely a loser with no brain, that's why he ended up in a life of crime. He's probably either whacked out on a drug or having addiction withdrawals. And they probably owned their gun less than a week or two.

So, according to you, unless they have been training every week, we have nothing to worry about. They won't even be able to hit us.

You strike me as someone who doesn't even own firearms.

First off police shoot innocent people all the time. Which is a side effect of poor training.

A target is a target. If it moves and you have a bersa .380 which is a common cc you most likely aren't going to hit it without extensive training past 15 to 20 feet.

The idea you can willfully chase down bad guys is very different than getting mugged and firing at someone standing in front of you.

Police have things like 12 pound triggers because they so often accidentally fire their weapons. This is just how it is.

If you don't understand what I am talking about chances are you don't shoot. Shooting requires training. Putting your cc in someone's belly who is standing in front of you is another thing. Chasing a bad guy or getting in range is another entirely. This is why the military trains. This is why people with a clue train.

There isn't a single person who actively uses firearms that would say you can just expect to hit targets without practice. Including people. A laser can help but you still need to train how to shoot steady. And that requires maintenance.

Your strawman arguments are outrageous.

a reply to: Im2keul

From what I saw, and what I understand about bullet wounds, how they form, what they look like from the inside, I would say the chances of the criminal performing a leg sweep after taking three torso hits, are about the same chances that someone is going to walk into my store, right now, and just give me a million pounds in cash, for no reason, in the next ten seconds...

And...

Nothing. Not a penny. Ah well. However, the point is that as you can see from the look of utter agony on the criminals face, he is in no condition to be performing any kind of leg sweep, no matter which martial arts doctrine you choose the sweep from. ALL of them involve some torso muscle, every single one. Tensing ANY of the muscles in his torso, given the bullet wounds, would have been enough to knock the man unconscious. It seemed pretty clear that the pain had rendered him insensible, that he was in limited control of his body at best. When the lady who shot him, steps on his rump to secure him, its clear. Anyone in control of their body, with a gun drawn on them, ordered to roll over, is probably going to just do it, but he not only could not comply with the command, but was in such spasm that the lady with the gun had to force him over onto his front.

Thats all the agony talking. He was not being obstinate, but merely incapable of controlling his body, such was the pain he was in. That man was not about to sweep anything worth a damn.

originally posted by: TheLotLizard

originally posted by: MisterSpock
Thelotlizard:

Don't project your own cowardice on other people. Aka, speak for yourself and keep the bogus stats for your next CNN garbage opinion piece.

Um what? I’m a veteran, unlike you I’ve seen the whites of a mans as his life fades away from the bullets ripping through his chest.

Now until you have something constructive to come out of your mouth I ask you to go politely into your hole.

You dont have to be brave to shoot people dead. So yeah you were a soldier. big whoop. Plenty of scared people can shoot well too.

a reply to: luthier

First off police shoot innocent people all the time. Which is a side effect of poor training.

LEOs certainly do NOT shoot innocent folks "all the time" in fact, it is incredibly rare. If I were you, I'd stop worrying about the Police. Statistics show you're immeasurably more likely to be shot and killed intentionally by a degenerate gang banger/criminal.

I mean, glad to see you are carrying a firearm/law abiding citizen but for God's sake stop levying baseless accusations against LE: SAME TEAM!!!!!!

a reply to: JBurns

In 1990, NYPD officer hit potential was only 19%. Eighty-one percent of the rounds they fired at criminals missed. At less than three yards, they hit only 38% of the time. From 3-7 yards, 11.5% and from 7-15 yards, only 9.4%.

My personal experience validates the NYPD statistics, but statistics from the Metro-Dade Police Department from 1988-1994 published in a Police Policy Studies Council report indicate officers fired app. 1300 rounds at suspects, missing more than 1,100 times. They hit only about 15.4% of their shots, most of these from near-touching distance. During that period, using revolvers, they missed 65% of the time, but oddly, 75% of the time with semiautomatic handguns.

More data from the same report for the NYPD during 1994-2000, when the NYPD was far more semiautomatic heavy, are interesting, and sobering. At 0-2 yards, the hit rate was 69%, but from 3-7 yards, only 19%. With increasing distance the hit rate dramatically declined, with only 2% from 16-25 yards and 1% at 25 yards and greater.

According to a 2008 RAND Corporation study evaluating the New York Police Department’s firearm training, between 1998 and 2006, the average hit rate during gunfights was just 18 percent. When suspects did not return fire, police officers hit their targets 30 percent of the time.[/ex


From links I posted. From officers themselves.
If you don't admit there is a problem it can't be fixed. Anyone who shoots knows how hard it is after about 15 to 20 ft with your heart pounding.

a reply to: JBurns

My purpose is to get people to the range and stop pretending everyone is a sniper. It takes constant practice. The higher density of the population you are firing within requires accuracy. Accuracy takes skill. Skill takes practice. No and is or buts about it

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: TheLotLizard

originally posted by: MisterSpock
Thelotlizard:

Don't project your own cowardice on other people. Aka, speak for yourself and keep the bogus stats for your next CNN garbage opinion piece.

Um what? I’m a veteran, unlike you I’ve seen the whites of a mans as his life fades away from the bullets ripping through his chest.

Now until you have something constructive to come out of your mouth I ask you to go politely into your hole.

You dont have to be brave to shoot people dead. So yeah you were a soldier. big whoop. Plenty of scared people can shoot well too.

Scared people can't shoot well unless they are 3 yards away or less with a handgun. That is a fact.

a reply to: luthier

Not sure you are following what I said but you proved the point with your first statement. LEO are some of the least well trained with weapons. I made two statements and you are confusing 5 different topics in your post. Don't compare marksmanship training with conceal carry-draw training. Night and day difference mate. I can train you how to create space within inches of your target, draw, and fire a round into a vital organ in 2 seconds. This has absolutely noting to do with marksmanship training. I can also negate the need for pinpoint accuracy by having you outfit your carry load with hollow points which ensure maximum tissue damage. It also eliminates the possibility of a pass through shot hitting a secondary target behind your primary target.

The 30 minutes per month at the range is a 100% accurate assessment for the average gun owner to maintain relative shooting accuracy at a close range target based on average distance of engagement. I also have dry run drills I have students practice at home which are equally important to live range training.

The stress aspect you mention is why people need to train. Stress only occurs when the brain gets involved. Training takes over for the brain which is the entire intent of training. Lastly, unless a person has ever been involved in an actual fire fight you can never prepare someone for this. It's like trying to explain what skydiving is like to a person who has never skydived. All they can do is try to prepare themselves mentally in the event of an active shooting scenario. Again, this is where training will take over.

originally posted by: Outlier13
a reply to: luthier

Not sure you are following what I said but you proved the point with your first statement. LEO are some of the least well trained with weapons. I made two statements and you are confusing 5 different topics in your post. Don't compare marksmanship training with conceal carry-draw training. Night and day difference mate. I can train you how to create space within inches of your target, draw, and fire a round into a vital organ in 2 seconds. This has absolutely noting to do with marksmanship training. I can also negate the need for pinpoint accuracy by having you outfit your carry load with hollow points which ensure maximum tissue damage. It also eliminates the possibility of a pass through shot hitting a secondary target behind your primary target.

The 30 minutes per month at the range is a 100% accurate assessment for the average gun owner to maintain relative shooting accuracy at a close range target based on average distance of engagement. I also have dry run drills I have students practice at home which are equally important to live range training.

The stress aspect you mention is why people need to train. Stress only occurs when the brain gets involved. Training takes over for the brain which is the entire intent of training. Lastly, unless a person has ever been involved in an actual fire fight you can never prepare someone for this. It's like trying to explain what skydiving is like to a person who has never skydived. All they can do is try to prepare themselves mentally in the event of an active shooting scenario. Again, this is where training will take over.

Mate I am talking about a good guy stopping a bad guy from being in the vicinity...I think I clearly stated a mugging is a different situation. Stopping a mass shooter in a room of panic is not something an untrained person can do.

So yes. You can shoot up to about 15 feet by training 30 mins a month.

And yes you can absolutely train for adrenaline dumps. You can be in shape and you can be a good shot.

My point is shooting is a skill. It takes serious training. To fire a handgun past 15 feet takes pretty significant training. To fore a handgun in a moderately dense population beyond 15 feet without hurting someone innocent takes tremendous training. The woman in this video is obviously well trained. Also has a 1911 which is a great gun and has accurate groupings..a far cry from a subcompact.

So for the people thinking teachers or even cops can simply fire 20 yards into a crowd of panicking students that is a rediculous notion.

originally posted by: Ameilia

originally posted by: subfab
a reply to: Outlier13

i'm pro 2nd amendment.

but a gun in the hands of an untrained person is just as dangerous as the attacker.
this woman was trained and had experience in the field. this is not the same as a concealed carry citizen.


in my opinion, people need to be trained if they are going to carry in public.

You do realize you have to pass multiple tests in order to get a permit right? To state or imply that concealed carry holders are untrained is frankly insulting.

to receive mine, all i had to do was pass a FBI background check.
this was 20 years ago, things may have changed since then.

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: TheLotLizard

originally posted by: MisterSpock
Thelotlizard:

Don't project your own cowardice on other people. Aka, speak for yourself and keep the bogus stats for your next CNN garbage opinion piece.

Um what? I’m a veteran, unlike you I’ve seen the whites of a mans as his life fades away from the bullets ripping through his chest.

Now until you have something constructive to come out of your mouth I ask you to go politely into your hole.

You dont have to be brave to shoot people dead. So yeah you were a soldier. big whoop. Plenty of scared people can shoot well too.

Scared people can't shoot well unless they are 3 yards away or less with a handgun. That is a fact.

Tell that to the Soldiers in WW2 or other wars. if you are not scared in battle you do not deserve to be there. Fear is a great motivator. Speaking in absolutes is stupid because there are always exceptions to the rule.

originally posted by: 3n19m470

originally posted by: subfab
a reply to: Outlier13

i'm pro 2nd amendment.

but a gun in the hands of an untrained person is just as dangerous as the attacker.
this woman was trained and had experience in the field. this is not the same as a concealed carry citizen.


in my opinion, people need to be trained if they are going to carry in public.

We should definitely encourage people to take training classes. If we require training/testing for a car license, we should at least encourage it (even as far as including some kind of reward for passing the test or something I dunno) for firearms.

That being said, they are fairly simple to use, and technically a 10 year old could stop a criminal at close range, saving their own life and that of others, let alone what an adult could do, trained or not.

I have a ten year old. We set up our steel for a hostage situation, and he friggin nails it.
With a Ruger gp100 no less. So yea, a ten year old can do it.

A "mom", that did some good sh*t, when it needed done! Awesome!..
You'd almost think she was an American, "woman"!

a reply to: yuppa

The soldiers that were effective had a natural tendency to remain calm in battle. They may be normal humans before the shtf but once it goes down can remain focused.

It's hard for those who haven't competed in combat where you can be hurt if you screw up to understand. But there is also an art to train average men to remain calm through muscle memory and a type of mindful breath control erc

a reply to: Outlier13

She did awesome!

The crook did poorly and paid for it. But reap what you sow I guess.

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: TheLotLizard
99.9999999999% of conceal carry owners would be too cowardly to do anything.

And the fact that she was almost shot herself shows how stupidly she reacted. If he would have pointed his attention tthen her.2 seconds earlier and saw her going through her purse he would have gotten her first. And she was a trained person.

Putting an average citizen in this situation they would have gotten shot 9 times out of 10.

Thank you for showing your ignorance on the subject. People all react differently in a confrontation. Depends on mood, environment, training, circumstances. Some military trained people will stumble at the wrong time, some civilians will react immediately.

Perhaps in other threads like this, you should simply not comment?

Or keep doing so... it just makes your side of things look more idiotic.

Hmm I guess I’m not fit for commenting seeing I’m trained in small arms more than almost everyone on this site.

Yea I’m an idiot lmfao.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: yuppa

The soldiers that were effective had a natural tendency to remain calm in battle. They may be normal humans before the shtf but once it goes down can remain focused.

It's hard for those who haven't competed in combat where you can be hurt if you screw up to understand. But there is also an art to train average men to remain calm through muscle memory and a type of mindful breath control erc

I bet you they were still scared though.