Mall Shooting in NE:How many have to die before they recognize the obvious truth?
A single shooter, with a rifle, fired, almost casually, in three-four round bursts. Ranges were short. All shooting was over within two minutes, ending when the shooter himself committed suicide.
First police units arrived within five minutes from receipt of initial 911 calls. Shooting was already over. Police never fired a shot.
Lessons: It is unrealistic to believe that police could have arrived any sooner, nor have responded any more aggressively. I can't imagine a better reason for carrying routinely. Expecting to be rescued or saved from harm by police, or anyone else, is delusional.
In a desperate situation like this mall shooting, when left with no choice, you must be up to the task. A single, well-placed, pistol shot could have abruptly ended this affair, had an armed and well-trained Operator been present. Unfortunately, none were.
Like nearly all other mass murders, this one took place in a "Gun-Free Zone," or, more correctly, a "Criminal-Empowerment Zone." "No-Guns-Allowed" signs are thus contemptuously ignored by those who value their lives.
The Gunslinger
Obviously, that guy didn't see the "Gun-Free Zone" signs.
ReplyDeleteWhen I train officers in my Department, the question is routinely asked about the pros and cons of carrying off-duty. I am consistently mystified by this.
Risk management DICTATES that we plan, train for, and anticipate the event that DOESN'T happen every day and has an occurance possibility of "rare to never." In this sense, there are no "cons" to trained officers carrying their weapons off the clock. In fact, the way I see it, it's a duty.
California doesn't make it easy for civilians to be granted a CCW, and a citizen invoking their 2nd Amendment rights in defense of themselves or others with a weapon concealed without a CCW would face prosecution regardless of the number of lives saved. Criminal empowerment, indeed.
Where were our armed citizens?...oh yeah, gun-free zone...
ReplyDelete