My G26 or LCP, neither one is good for that shot. I couldn't be sure of hitting a king sized mattress with the first shot at that range with either of them even on a target range never mind with the stress of having to make the shot or get ready for incoming from a rifle. Nor, I suspect, could 95% of those reading this forum. I admire the guy who didn't take the shot for knowing his limitations, acting responsibly, and not spraying bullets all over.
That shot across the parking lot with the adrenelin surging, loss of small movement coordination that happens under stress, is darn near impossible under the stress of combat for a civillian, and probably more than 95% of LEO's. It's said that one shoots no better than half as well in a defensive situation then they shoot on the range. Even the stress of IDPA shooting is enough to make it a lot more difficult than one might think from just seeing the scenarios, never mind some unknown dude (he could be very very good with that thing) with a rifle shooting back.
I'd have no problem taking the shot with my walk around ground hog rifle - made 7 standing off hand shots at ground hogs 50 to 110 yards away with my CZ223 (4.5-14x40 Leupold scope on it) sporter - didn't miss any of them this past summer. I get a lot of practice shooting at and killing moving targets in farm fields. Not the same as a defensive situation, but there is some stress. I know what it takes to hit something the size of a human head (ground hog is about that size or a bit smaller) moving at 100 yards out to 280 yards (my longest cold zero one shot kill at a moving target), I do it a lot hunting ground hogs, but with a handgun? Really? Not going to take that shot. In fact I don't know anybody that knows anybody that could say they have even a 25% chance of making a one shot instant response under stress hit with an iron sighted 4" barrel carry gun at that distance, and that bullet is going someplace.
I don't feel any responsibility for my every day carry to be a gun that would make that shot, nor do I feel an obligation to practice shots like that. The better place to be defending is, unfortunately, in the restaurant. That is the distance context that matches what most of us are packing.
Gabe sells training, writes articles to create a market for his training, to convince people they need the training he sells. I appreciate that he and the other superheros who train daily can make off hand shots at moving suspects at 100 yards knowing they have a reasonable chance of making the shot, or the physical stamina to run 100 yards and be steady enough to pull off a shot, but even being a rather active 69 years old, I can't do that, and I'm not likely to need the skills to do that either. It's a very low probability event. And that's just how it is.
The question was asked (typical guilt trip), would we want somebody to take the shot if our family was in the restaurant? The question is not relevant. If my family was in the restaurant, I'd be in there with them, packing, some of them packing as well, willing to do what I had to do to protect them. If I'm not allowed to carry in the restaurant, we won't be there to begin with. I am not going to depend on someone 100 yards away getting lucky with his carry gun.
As has been said before, "A man's got to know his limitations". The guy that didn't take the shot knew his limitations. Good on him.
What I see as missing from your reasoning is the fact that it is the responsibility of the others in the restaurant that is about to be attacked to be prepared (packing is one way) to protect themselves and their families. People that go out and about unarmed have exactly zero right to expect me or you or anybody else to protect them from what they should be protecting themselves from, and even less to expect us to risk our lives and financial futures by taking borderline irresponsible actions to do so. Taking a shot that has at best a 1% or 2% chance of hitting it's intended target with occupied buildings behind the target is not responsible IMO. If they benefit from our efforts to protect ourselves in the conditions that exist when we have to do that, they got lucky and I've got no problem with that. But I feel no duty to take a near impossible shot from across the parking lot putting others not in the restaurant at risk to protect them when they make an explicet choice not to protect themselves.
The decision to not take the shot across the parking lot is not the choice to become a liability. The liability is the active shooter. What happens as a result of his actions, what he does, is his fault.
I asked before and got no response, so I will ask again. Does anyone know what pistol the guy at the BBQ place was armed with when he declined to go long-range?
What I see as missing from your reasoning is the fact that it is the responsibility of the others in the restaurant that is about to be attacked to be prepared (packing is one way) to protect themselves and their families. People that go out and about unarmed have exactly zero right to expect me or you or anybody else to protect them from what they should be protecting themselves from, and even less to expect us to risk our lives and financial futures by taking borderline irresponsible actions to do so.
Thats something that very few people have a concept of these days. Its sure not something that is taught in the average school.
You are correct. No one said that it was. If you cant make the shot, then dont take it.Quote:
Taking a shot that has at best a 1% or 2% chance of hitting it's intended target with occupied buildings behind the target is not responsible IMO.
On the other hand, a shot doesnt have to connect to be effective. All it has to do is to force the shooter to keep his head down, thus allowing others to escape, manuever,pray, whatever. Its not a new concept, its been used by police and the military for few hundred years. There are quite a few shooters out there that could make the shot. Dont assume that everyone has the same limitations as you. I've seen people take a two inch .38 special and shoot ballons at 100 yards with the same gun that others could miss a B27 silhouette at 25 yards with. Does that mean that the gun is incapable? No, it just means that they are.
I hear ya and I understand.Quote:
But I feel no duty to take a near impossible shot from across the parking lot putting others not in the restaurant at risk to protect them when they make an explicet choice not to protect themselves.
For most though, they dont see it as a choice of whether to protect themselves or not. Most of them never even think about it until its too late. It never even enters into their minds. How many woke up that day and thought " I wonder if we'll get shot at today?". Not one single one. As for being a concious thought, it was not. I'd be willing to bet that the ones that survived the encounter WILL give it a second thought because their lives have been changed forever. Some will seek counseling. Others may respond by wanting to learn how to protect themselves. Probably a few will blame the event on the availability of guns, using that as a scapegoat. A few may go out and purchase a handgun or even seek to get a permit to carry.
The thing is, they have to live through it.
I'm not suggesting that someone that does not feel confident with their ability to shoot step out beyond their mode of competance. I am only suggesting that they think about these things NOW,so that if they do get into an active shooter situation they can do something other than lay in the fetal postion in a pool of piss.
I also realize that it is a stretch of my imagination to beleive that someone out there could make a differrence by choosing to act becasue propable 95% of the population wouldnt.. Even so, I still choose to beleive that an armed citizen somewhere could end it before it ever got started...but I'm simple like that. I want to think that we still have at least 5 % of people that wouldnt put up with such a blantant disrespect for human life and do something to end it. I could be wrong about that, it may be that as a civilization we have fallen futher than I thought.
here is Ralph Swagler... I doubt he was in shape to properly close the 100 yards..... again YOUR BODY is your most important tool
I dont know about that. It used to be, but the with the addition of firearms to the equation its not as important as it used to be.Quote:
I doubt he was in shape to properly close the 100 yards..... again YOUR BODY is your most important tool
A skinny guy that could close the distance and empty his gun at the shooter without hitting him isnt doing as much good as the fat guy that takes a careful aim from afar, fires and drops him.
I might close distance, might try and fire distracting shots but go toe to toe at 100 yards and he has a rifle.
No. I do feel a responsibility to respond within my capability and would be an active first responder and if I had a shot I would take it. But I am not going out of my way to put my life on the line if all I have is my pocket carry.
Again if by some act of god I have one of my Saigas with me, sure I would respond. Saiga 12 gauge with slugs at 100 yards. That would be ok with my. .308 at 100 yards same deal.
But on an average day, wait and see. And I frankly have doubts about an accurate 100 yard shot in an active shooter situation. If your first shot misses, that guy is coming for you and his AR vs your pistol. Nuh uh.
If I am in the place, I will be armed so kind of hard for me to relate. Speaking as a person who may be inside it unarmed...TAKE THE SHOT. Just trying to put myself in their shoes. I do understand those who would not take the shot and their reasoning.
My posting of Gabe's article, I do think it was a good write up, but was to be a eye opener for us all. Are we as well prepard as we can or could be? Is the gun I (you) carry the best one for the worst case situation that could be faced? Should I (you) do more training and practice, (long range shooting)? Is your body in the best shape it could or can be in? (I know mine is not) I need to get off my a** and do something about it and not just for cc reasons.
I'm sure there are other Questions one could ask of themselves, The question is will we? and what well we do about them.
The situation we face may not be like the one in the IHOP, involvement of others, it may be your families we have to protect from a long way away. Can you do it? Do you want to be able to do it? Then what needs to change?*****Only YOU can change it*******
oakchas and HotGuns.....I understand your points and IMO they are not all contradictory....just coming from different angles. I don't think HotGuns' comments about 'manning up' are directed or meant for folks on a site like this since we carry, and want to defend ourselves/family/innocents. I took it as he meant it for the sheep that have there heads in the sand and don't have a mindset that allows them to even consider taking action.
Good discussion here guys and gals. There is no such thing as enough training. We should all strive to improve our skills as much as possible. And as Bill mentioned...physical conditioning, diet, etc are all factors relating to our skills and using them properly.
But Columbine changed this whole mindset and SOP all over the country as it pertains to Active Shooter. Maybe in some jurisdictions/departments the hold, wait for backup is still the SOP for an AS call, but not everywhere. The LE agencies in Littleton, CO were blasted by the media, some politicians, and millions of people around the country for the way they reacted and handled the situation after the fact. But...at the time that was the SOP/training they operated under. SOPs and training evolve, and unfortunately sometimes its because people died.
just some fyi.....
In our AS training we are taught formations, techniques, communications, contact teams and rescue teams.
But....we were clearly taught, and unequivocally told by the instructors under direct authorization of admin, that its a judgement call on our part if we are going to wait for the rest of the first entry team to enter or go in, but we are to communicate that on the radio. It all depends on the situation
We are not and will not be told by a supervisor to not go in. They get the same training we do and they know its a judgement call.
Would I bust the first arriving officer's chops for not going in alone? No, absolutely not.
I for one could not stand outside a school hearing gunshots going off and know that precious children are being gunned down.
When its thought of in its basic elements....its Active Murder, not just Active Shooter, taking place.
Each of us has to weigh our skills/abilities and make a decision based on the situation. As I said in my earlier post, I will not blast the BBQ guy for not taking the shot if he felt he couldn't take it. CCW'ers are not going to be able to save the day in every situation, but hopefully will when given the right circumstances.
If I get more training, as I hope, it will be more gun retention, more self-defense skills, etc. It will not be proficiency at long-range distances with my carry weapon (altho I do that for fun and practice). I only have so much time (& money) to spend.
We cant be prepared for every situation, esp. not us civilians. These scenarios are helpful because they also offer OTHER ways to make a difference besides using your firearm and in helping to use good judgement in difficult situations.
I could Safely engage a human target at up to 35 yards with my 9mm. 50 would push it.
My .380 max of 15
And thats all I ever carry. I am very fit so closing the distance to me sounds like a better option. I could close 100 yards in 12 seconds. If hes focused elsewhere that would work.
Other than that I really think I would need my Shotties or rifle.
I just cant see myself carrying a pistol to engage at 100 yards.
64Zebra is right. After Columbine everything changed.
The doctirne of Isolate, communicate, negotiate was found to be wanting. Is does no good to do all these things while the shooter is still killing people. Tactical doctrine now is that first on scene form a team, including a one man team if needed, and you go in. You bypass the dead, dying, wounded or any explosive device and you go to the area where the suspect is and you stop the threat....period.
As stated if you or your firearm are not capable of taking the long shot and you should choose to act, the only option is to close the distance to the effective range of you and your weapon. Do you run the risk of the shooter seeing you and now engaging you, without a doubt. Once you close that distance could you make the headshot or other disabling shot if needed? These are the questions that need to be answered.
Circumstances will also effect the viability of closing with the shooter. If you have a situation like the photo in Oakchas' post #31, most of the distance is without any kind of cover, which for most mortals would require a round about approach. This would add even more time until practical intervention.