edinsomd
New Member
In the Navy Yard shooting he took out the armed people first. If you shoot your way through the armed people, and you know that there are probably more armed people there, what makes you think that more armed people would be a deterrent? If the guy is willing to die, how would the potential of dying stop him?
Do you know for a fact that there were no legal CCW carriers in the mall when this happened? With a mall that size, and with a bank in there, there's a great chance there were armed guards and/or cops there. In fact, since the cops made it there within 90 seconds, they were probably in the mall. What makes you think that Mr. "if I see a threatening guy come out of the back room I'll cap him before he does anything" would help at all IN THIS CASE???
What some of you are missing is that you are trying to use this incident, in which it appears that CCW would not have affected the outcome, to argue for more CCW. It isn't logical, and it makes it easier for the anti-gun crowd to lump us all into the crackpot category.
I have never stated this. I am not law enforcement, and am not trained or equipped to take on an active shooter. Especially one armed with a shotgun. If faced with a situation like this I would leave very quickly, or if unable would hunker down and protect myself and others, if possible. My point is if people were afforded their Second Amendment Rights, and those who were willing to take the responsibility to carry concealed, would, then criminals would be less brazen in their acts for the simple reason they now face the possibility of armed resistance.
As for the Navy Yard shooter, he planned his attack quite carefully. As did the shooters at Virginia Tech, the Colorado movie theater, and Sandy Hook elementary school. And they all planned for success by attacking essentially gun free zones.