Write up on Carson City IHOP

This is a discussion on Write up on Carson City IHOP within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Oakchas, I think you hit all the key points in the situation. I don't know want class/range requirement there are for CHL in NV. But, ...

Page 5 of 11 FirstFirst 123456789 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 158
Like Tree109Likes

Thread: Write up on Carson City IHOP

  1. #61
    Member Array baren's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Bagram, Afghanistan
    Posts
    244
    Oakchas,
    I think you hit all the key points in the situation. I don't know want class/range requirement there are for CHL in NV. But, in some States like GA requires nothing more than a State Driver's license and a background check get a CHL. My home is in Texas and youíre required to attend classes, pass a written test and demonstrate your proficiency on the range and pass a background check.

    If I was a mere mortal NV citizen CHL as a GA CHL, I wouldn't feel comfortable even firing at 15 yrds! More innocents would have injured or killed. IMHO

    Life doesn't allow for resets or take backs.

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #62
    Member Array zonzin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Peoples Protectorate of Kaliforniya, gulag NorCal
    Posts
    98
    I dont know,, thought about this incident a lot as I was in the area the day before. I was carrying my 5.7 at the time and I know it can easily do 100 yrds,, it can,, not sure about me though. I have hit 4 inch steel at 50 yards but a 100 is a long ways even with a flat shooter like the 5.7. If I could have found a car for cover behind the engine block and rested on the hood from a kneeling position, I think I would have taken the shot. You never know until your there in the thick of it.


    .
    Last edited by zonzin; September 26th, 2011 at 05:31 PM.

  4. #63
    VIP Member Array oakchas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    7,349
    Quote Originally Posted by HotGuns View Post
    ...
    As officers, we do not really have the abilty to "opt out" as armed citizens do. We must engage until the threat is neutralized. Whether it be with a handgun, a rifle, a shotgun or sitting at a table and attempting to bounce a glass of milk off of the head of the shooter, we'll do whatever it takes.
    Sure, if you're in the diner, unarmed, and an active shooter comes in after already shooting up the parking lot a milk glass to the forehead, or a pot of hot coffee ala flight 93 is doing something and may delay or stop the assailant.


    Quote Originally Posted by HotGuns View Post
    ...We also agreed that if you had to engage a man from afar, that even if you could not hit the target, just keeping him occupied might save some lives until backup arrived.
    Now, there is something we haven't mentioned in this thread... maybe if safe shots can be made (as regards beyond the target); keeping him occupied and unable to take his fight inside, might have been a viable option. That is something to think about.

    Quote Originally Posted by HotGuns View Post
    In an active shooter scenario, when someone is firing and killing people, to say that you wont shoot because you might miss the target and hit an inncocent bystander is to ignore the greater harm. Letting someone indiscriminatly shoot while being armed just seems wrong to me. Yeah...I've heard every excuse that a human being can come up with for justifing their inactions,every legal argument, every moral argument every reason for not doing something.
    This one, I take some offense to. "Excuse?... Justifying?" Even the MOST liberal Good Samaritan Laws would not allow me to run over several innocent bystanders with my truck to get to the wounded victim of an accident so I could render first aid. Even most LE departments and the cities that run them would pay a heavy price for such action... by a LEO. The civil suits would decimate a citizen with a PCW that injured or killed innocents while trying to stop the BG.

    Quote Originally Posted by HotGuns View Post
    The world is getting crazier by the day. People are going off the deep end for various reasons and I'm willing to bet it will only get worse. These shootings are happening more often, and there is no safe terrritory, it can happen anywhere.
    This is something we all know and agree with, else we would not feel the need to go armed out into the world.

    Quote Originally Posted by HotGuns View Post
    Maybe, just maybe, as concealed weapons holders if we engaged shooters that were hell bent on destruction, and we killed them before they really got started, the rest of the phsyco's that would do such things would have second thoughts about going out in public with AK's or AR's or shotguns and shooting the easy targets.
    Yes, but it is not incumbent upon us to do so, especially if to do so would also risk innocent life.

    Quote Originally Posted by HotGuns View Post
    Yeah, I know that its a stretch of the imagination to think that someone like an armed civilian would man up and eliminate the threat, but we have to start somewhere.
    "Man up?" Really? C'mon, You are asking the (for the most part) occasionally carrying, little trained average Joe (or Jane) to take a hundred yard shot or a 50-85 yard sprint in time to stop a madman from entering the IHOP... Wait, I can do the latter ... just let me get my outfit out of my Flash Ring...

    unnamed.jpg

    And, just for the sake of argument... why don't you and your buddies from the IHOP dining experience post your times in the 50 yard and 100 yard dash for us all, kay?


    (I'm in trouble now...)
    azchevy and Fitch like this.
    Rats!
    It could be worse!
    I suppose

  5. #64
    VIP Member
    Array Mike1956's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Marion County, Ohio
    Posts
    10,431
    I'm curious, and have not seen it published anywhere. Does anyone know exactly what model of handgun the fellow who was at the BBQ place was carrying?

  6. #65
    Senior Moderator
    Array HotGuns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,877
    Intresting post there oakchas...and one that reflects much of society...

    in your response....
    Yes, but it is not incumbent upon us to do so, especially if to do so would also risk innocent life.
    You may be missing the point. If you have an active shooter in a restaurant, innocent life is already at risk. To not act because you might risk what is already at risk it a bit short sighted in thinking. How would you feel if you later found out that I was armed, but didn't want to act for fear of" risking innoncent life", while I watched someone you loved shot down?
    That "risk" all of a sudden wouldnt seem so big now, would it?

    and to this...
    "Man up?" Really? C'mon, You are asking the (for the most part) occasionally carrying, little trained average Joe (or Jane) to take a hundred yard shot or a 50-85 yard sprint in time to stop a madman from entering the IHOP... Wait, I can do the latter ... just let me get my outfit out of my Flash Ring...
    Yeah, man up. I dont care about how much training you have or dont have,what training you do have will more than likely seem inadequate for the task at hand. I dont care what kind of shot you take...100 yards, 50 yards, or whether you stick your pistol in his eye socket and pull the trigger. I just want someone...anyone...to do something to prevent more loss of life.
    I know that the average guy with a gun wants only to shoot to protect himself, so that he can go home to his wife, or so that he dosent have to spend the rest of his life paying lawyer bills, or justifying his actions. I know that some dont care about anything or anyone except themselves and as long as our armed citizens think that way, then they will never be a detterant, in an age when we need them the most.
    We have got to get past this me me me crap and man up.

    Many of us here understand that. The OP understands that. The thing is, many here dont. If wearing that little Flash Ring of yours can open up your mind a bit and help you to see things from a different angle, then I suggest you wear it 24 hours a day.

    And, just for the sake of argument... why don't you and your buddies from the IHOP dining experience post your times in the 50 yard and 100 yard dash for us all, kay?
    Nah. I aint runnin. I'll just whip out the .308 and end it proper like.
    I would rather stand against the cannons of the wicked than against the prayers of the righteous.


    AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
    Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
    http://bobbailey1959.wordpress.com/

  7. #66
    VIP Member Array smolck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    3,020
    So I take a 100 yard shot with my 9mm and miss and hit someone else. Now I am liable for murder. It is a sad situation no doubt, but as a CCW holder I am not a LEO. I have no duty (or protection of law) to be an "active combatant". Would I intervene? I can't say, I wasn't there. If I had been IN the IHOP, the outcome would have been different. I would have fired no doubt.
    Fitch and baren like this.

  8. #67
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,962
    Quote Originally Posted by HotGuns View Post

    You may be missing the point. If you have an active shooter in a restaurant, innocent life is already at risk. To not act because you might risk what is already at risk it a bit short sighted in thinking. How would you feel if you later found out that I was armed, but didn't want to act for fear of" risking innoncent life", while I watched someone you loved shot down?
    But to play devils advocate here.....
    When you take the shot and miss and that bullet strikes my loved one and kills them do you expect me not to sue you for everything you have? As a LEO you have a reduced level of personal liability unless we can show that you were grossly negligent. As they say, every bullet has a lawyer attached to it. While your employer may step up to the plate and have the tax payers pay for whatever the judgement might be against you, the vast majority of us don't have that luxury.

    As it is what percentage of the occupants of that restaurant were shot? So you can't say for certain that my loved one would be just as dead if you had not taken that long range pistol shot. In fact, my lawyer is going to use this shooting and any others he can find to show that statistically speaking my loved one would more than likely have survived if you didn't shoot. Texas law is quite clear on the civil liability issue. I am personally liable civilly and criminally for every bullet I launch that does not stop in the Bad Guy.

    So let's say I close to fifty yards and then open up with my handgun before he gets inside. One of my rounds goes through the window and strikes and kills a child having breakfast. The BG then notices me and turns his attention to me and kills me, then procedes inside. When all the dust settles, my family now has to pay my final expesnes, plus my estate is being sued by the family of the child I killed. HEROS and COPS are not going to put my kid through college. The county is not going to pay for my funeral. I do the right thing and get killed for it, are you going to provide for my family? Let's not forget that some life insurance policies have little provisions like they don't have to pay if you die during a criminal act. I just commited a negligent homicide or manslaughter or what ever you might want to call it. Do you think my insurance company is going to pay off when they have an out like that?

    The Supreme Court has held that police have no duty to protect any individual absent a special relationship between that person and the department. So who do I have the greater duty to, the people in IHOP or my wife and children?
    limatunes, 9MMare and Fitch like this.
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

  9. #68
    Senior Moderator
    Array HotGuns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,877
    So who do I have the greater duty to, the people in IHOP or my wife and children?
    Thats a question that only YOU can answer.

    We can play the coulda,woulda,shoulda game until we are blue in the face. In life, there are no quarantees, you aren't even guaranteed your next breath.

    In the mean time, people get shot by thugs and their only goal is to kill as many as they can before they die.

    The only choice you actually have, is to become an asset or a liability in this situation.

    Sometimes, you dont have time to think, you just have time to do.


    Hopefully,one has thought all this out before hand and resolved it to his own liking, so that if ever you do have to do, you can do it quickly and efficiently.
    I would rather stand against the cannons of the wicked than against the prayers of the righteous.


    AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
    Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
    http://bobbailey1959.wordpress.com/

  10. #69
    VIP Member Array 9MMare's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Outside Seattle, WA
    Posts
    3,309
    Quote Originally Posted by oakchas View Post
    Now, there is something we haven't mentioned in this thread... maybe if safe shots can be made (as regards beyond the target); keeping him occupied and unable to take his fight inside, might have been a viable option. That is something to think about.

    I mentioned it and so did one or two others. Not to mention that you dont necessarily need a gun to do that. (Altho hopefully you have good cover as part of you plan).

    But the fact that we did have our carry weapons means that IF HE closes the distance or comes at us....then we gain some advantage and may be better able to use our weapons.
    Fortune favors the bold.

    Freedom doesn't mean safe, it means free.

    The thing about "defense" is that it has practically nothing to do with guns. (As passed on by CCW9MM)

  11. #70
    Distinguished Member Array Bill MO's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    1,433
    Quote Originally Posted by HotGuns View Post
    Sometimes, you dont have time to think, you just have time to do.


    Hopefully,one has thought all this out before hand and resolved it to his own liking, so that if ever you do have to do, you can do it quickly and efficiently.
    I think this is a very important part of this OP, standing on the sidewalk seeing something like this happening is not the time to be thinking about this. We now have a chance to do our thinking so when it or something like it happens we can act not think.

    In which ever way we act it is something we have thought about and not a spur of the moment thing that most like will be wrong no matter what it is.

    We all know action is faster than thought
    9MMare likes this.
    It's gotta be who you are, not a hobby. reinman45

    "Is this persons bad behavior worth me having to kill them over?" Guantes

  12. #71
    VIP Member Array oakchas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    7,349
    Okay, Hot Guns, you whip out the .308 (I hope it's got a scope). If I had one under the rear seat of my Sierra, I might too. But I don't. The BBQ man didn't either. Most of the rest of us don't.

    If being a responsibly armed citizen means having the firepower and training to guarantee a successful outcome in a situation like this, why stop at a .308 under the rear seat? Why not drive an armored car with a gun turret, or a half track or an MRAP?

    I am "with you" on a lot of your argument. Just as I am "with" the actions of the Korean shop owners on the roofs of their buildings shooting at rioters.

    I understand and agree that I might be able to stop the senseless death of one or more victims, but am NOT willing to create my own by my actions. So I ain't just thinking me, me, me.

    Assuming there was more "cover" in the parking lot that day than in the picture of the actual scene I provided above I would probably move towards the BG. The question is, would I, could I, get there in time?

    I can't take the hundred yard shot unless I can shoot in his direction without endangering others. And that shot is a possibility, if I can shoot to the right of the entrance to the IHOP from where I am... and if the BG registers the shot as a threat to him... it might buy time for me to get closer.

    Me, with 14 shots... Or 27 on the days I'm carrying two mags, against a guy with a fully auto AK... And lots of ammo.. I'm gonna die a hero, I guess.

    To your main point about mannin' up:

    Yes, as a whole, the citizens of this country need to take it back from the dregs of society. But, I don't think that a few incidents like the possible positive outcome of the OP's scenario would act as any sort of deterrent to other whackos out there. The voices in their heads (or whatever else motivates them) don't read the news.

    This type of action (successfully completed with the death of the shooter) wouldn't have stopped the unabomber, or Jared Loughner, or Seung-Hui Cho, or any other mental case with weapons; from wreaking havoc on society.

    I do believe that more Americans arming themselves to protect themselves and loved ones will deter thinking criminals, but "thinking criminal" is an oxymoron, for the most part.

    A large percentage of the posts on this forum, and the initial training that most permit holders get, centers around the teaching that we are not superheroes (Flash ring or not) or law enforcement auxiliary just because we have that permit.

    Much of the subsequent training we may get focuses on what to do when the fight is close and perhaps not deadly, CQB, and the legal ramifications of our actions.

    Some, outside LE, might go so far as to train for active shooter scenarios, but they are a small percentage of a small percentage... Let's face it, only about 1.2% of the population (national average guesstimate) have permits to carry firearms... and probably only 1.2% of those of us who do, go on to take more training, and probably only 1.2% of those go on to take even more training.

    If those figures are accurate, and I would guess they are pretty darn close... that means that in this country, there are about 518 people that are trained up enough to successfully attempt to stop this action, alone.

    There are many more LE, and ex mil around than that... but they are trained to be "team players." And, unless they are in the IHOP, under attack themselves, they are likely to fall back on training.. and you and I both know, that your own department does not train you to take on the guy alone... you are trained to call for backup... you would be told to wait for that backup by any supervisor on the radio.

    Sure, if you are alone and under attack (LE or military) you attempt to stop the threat... but if you are outside of the action, you are trained to call in air support, or backup, or reinforcements.

    Now, if that request is denied... Maybe you do what Dakota Meyer did... but even he waited until the request was denied a few times, and only then went in against training, and against orders... and he knew he was a dead man in the attempt. Only God had different ideas about the time of his ultimate demise.
    9MMare and bklynboy like this.
    Rats!
    It could be worse!
    I suppose

  13. #72
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,962
    Quote Originally Posted by HotGuns View Post
    The only choice you actually have, is to become an asset or a liability in this situation.
    So if I choose to engage the shooter from a range I am not competent at would call me an asset or a liability? If I was the one sitting down range now having to worry about bullets from two shooters instead of just one I know how I would feel. For all I know that shooter is there after his no good brother who just took off with his wife. He is just there to shoot the two of them then eat some pie before he surrenders to the police. I could very well end up killing more people than he would have if I didn't get involved.

    I think it really comes down to each individual's skill set and tools available. For grins friends and I have done some hundred yard shooting with our pistols. Before I swapped out the adjustable sights on my P226 for fixed sights I could put most on the paper and some in the black (100yd rifle targets) from a sand bag. If I had a good back stop would I try it under stress on a man sized target? If I saw no other option. With windows for a back stop, forget it.

    I think this incident is a very strong argument for a truck rifle. With a pistol under stress at that range I am probably as much a danger to the people down range as he is. With a rifle, it would be a very different story.

    As Harry Callahan said, a man has got to know his limitations. I would have no problem with anyone taking actions that are within their limitations, but going beyond those limitations can make a bad situation worse. If one takes action and can do so competently, even if that action is just calling 9-1-1, they would be an asset. If they took action at which they were not competent they are a liability. If they take no action, they are neither. Their inaction while it may have lasting repercussions in their own life, would not influence the outcome any more than if they were not even there at the time of the incident.
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

  14. #73
    Ex Member Array azchevy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Oceanfront Property
    Posts
    3,850
    Manning up to me means the father or mother coming home to their loved ones so that they can provide for them. Not recklessly running into a gunfight. Someone said "if more people would man up" how about if more people would take their own personal safety as their own responsibility and start carrying so those of us that do carry or law enforcement doesn't have to run to their aid? Man up and be an adult. Carry. Train.

  15. #74
    VIP Member Array Guantes's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Idaho
    Posts
    5,272
    This following is meant neither to endorse nor condemn intervention in situations of grave consequence. It is merely a personal view of some of the factors involved in the decision.


    We (collectively - meaning our adult population) have created or allowed to be created, the morass that we live in.

    Our population does not favor a warrior mentality or actions, or at the very least is ambivalent to them, especially outside of government entities. One example of this is Oakchas' figures on the percentage of the population that has ccw's. The population and thereby our laws and courts will often reluctantly accept such actions if obviously justified and without collateral damage. Should collateral damage occur, even though unintentional and without gross negligence, acceptance is rarely forthcoming. This applies to government entities as well as individuals.

    Even though we have to a significant extent become a society that has abdicated many personal responsibilities, we are very quick to criticize and hold accountable those who take on those responsibilities, be they individual or entity. While it is not unreasonable to expect a high level of performance of those who would act in such role, the expectation of absolute perfection, is unreasonable. The penalty when found guilty of such imperfection, is usually either financial, incarceration or both. These are in addition to such things as personal ridicule.

    Until a more equitable method of judging performance and results is forthcoming there will be some reluctance on the part of individuals, with some level of ability and means, to intervene in situations they are not personally involved in. The greater the perceived difficulty of achieving an outcome, in a specific situation, that is acceptable to the general population and legal system, the greater will be the reluctance to intervene.

    The percentage of the population who possess both the ability and means to intervene in any grave situation is quite small. As the situations become more complex and difficult, that percentage becomes even smaller. Then, excluding those who are unwilling to face the likely sanctions that will be forthcoming if their performance is less than perfect, the remainder is a miniscule amount.



    In contrast to the above is the desire to aid ones fellow man when he is in jeopardy.

    The personal feelings of guilt from not aiding others when one has the means and ability to do so.

    The willingness to come to the aid of those in jeopardy, no matter the personal cost.

    Although more brief, these are due equal consideration to the more lengthy ones above.


    As mentioned in previous posts, there are many things that should be considered before one is thrust into a situation where they might consider personal intervention. I consider these among that list.

    For most with some level of means and capability, I donít foresee it as being an easy decision, one way or the other.
    HotGuns, Majorlk, oakchas and 1 others like this.
    "I do what I do." Cpl 'coach' Bowden, "Southern Comfort".

  16. #75
    VIP Member Array oakchas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    7,349
    Well put, Guantes!

    In contrast to the above is the desire to aid ones fellow man when he is in jeopardy.

    The personal feelings of guilt from not aiding others when one has the means and ability to do so.

    The willingness to come to the aid of those in jeopardy, no matter the personal cost.
    I truly wish our society would allow one to do the right thing, simply because it is the right thing to do... without the risk or concern about penalties for the action.

    That said, in many instances it is quite difficult to decide what "the right thing to do" is... In domestic disputes, as a PRIME example... Who is the agressor? In Iowa now; both participants, if there are injuries to both, will go to jail.

    We have had many scenarios presented where it may be unclear as to who is the good guy/bad guy in a public altercation. As an example that comes to mind, in the case of plain clothes LEO or even undercover fighing with a "perp" if the perp is screaming for help and for all intents, appears to be on the wrong end of a beating... The CCW holder dare not come to the aid of one who appears to be the victim...

    While an assailant with an AK going into a restaurant after spraying the parkinglot is a clear cut case of evil MWAG, and the response seems simple and straightforward. The only limitations are angle of attack and time.

    Regardless of Yoda's apparently pithy wisdom, there is indeed TRY. There is not always and only DO or NOT DO.
    Rats!
    It could be worse!
    I suppose

Page 5 of 11 FirstFirst 123456789 ... LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

bodyguard 380

,

carson city ihop shooting

,

conceal carry witness to ihop shooting

,

concealed carry

,

defensive carry

,

defensive carry forum

,
ihop assessment toole
,
ihop shooter wearing body armor
,
ihop shooting ccw holders
,

jg sales

,

kimber solo

,
warriortalk forum gabe suarez ihop shooting
Click on a term to search for related topics.