stanc Wrote:Unfortunately, this event fails to "poo poo the idea that citizens are their own best defense."
None of the armed parishioners were effective, all but one drawing their weapons too late.
And the first parishioner who drew his pistol was also the first person shot by the attacker.
It was a uniformed security guard -- not a CCW citizen -- who shot and killed the attacker.
"Unfortunately"... What on earth are you saying Stan?
'Unfortunately' means you would prefer if the incident 'poo poo'd' [was critical of?] the idea of armed self-defence. Have I read you correctly? You do know this is a gun forum?
Here is the video of the event. Give the parishioners a break, please. They are not Tier-One operators but mature-age, kind-hearted folk. Plus they are praying in a church for goodness sake; not poised in a trench for the whistle to blow. They are obligated by context to give this guy the benefit of the doubt until it is frankly too late. They can't act until he shows his hand. It's always a case of initiative; the bad guy starts with it, and the victims need to think and react.
No, to my mind they were very effective in regaining the initiative; in the circumstances they were lightning fast.
0.07 He reveals the gun.
0.10 He shoulders the gun.
0.11 He fires the first shot.
0.12 He fires the second shot.
0.13 He is shot.
Why don't you get out to the range with a PACT timer and see how you go. Start sitting with your eyes open, then start with your eyes closed. Make sure your gun is holstered under a jacket. Then shoot from 20 metres standing with hostages in between. It would help if the target was robotic and moving. Then start on his first shot...The guy or girl who shot him was very effective.
I get what you are saying; that it is 'unfortunate' that we are permitted to carry weapons for self-defence and choose to do so, but it is also unfortunate people like you want to dissuade us from doing so.
https://www.liveleak.com/view?t=9N4df_1577655564