For the life of me, how could the average person with a concealed carry have taken out even one of the shooters in San Bernardino? They were on a scorched earth mission and would have fired at anybody that moved (if there weren't particular targets they were after). There were 2 men who had gone to the rest room, and a couple bullets came whizzing through the wall and into the paper towel dispenser near where they were standing, thereby at least one got grazed or shrapnel in the face. They hit the floor, put their feet evidently to brace the door and waited for the police. Source: an LAT article today.
With some luck, a concealed carry or two or three might have had a good shot while the crazies were reloading, distracted. They were in and out in I read 30 seconds but that might not be accurate. But it was fast.
The above I meant 1 to 3 people, one concealed carry each. If they had any time to coordinate, they might have gained an advantage. Maybe an experienced shooter can think of a scenario where they could have used their concealed carry to the advantage of themselves and at least some of the victims.
Yea, ok. It takes me 1.2 seconds to draw and fire three rounds. They come in with AR, I shoot them. I don’t understand your confusion?
One doesn’t have to “take out” the terrorist(s) or crazy. That’s ideal, of course. But even if one can only find a somewhat shielded position and get off a few rounds at the bad guys / gals, that should distract them and allow more time for others to escape.
Yes, it’s risky. The defender might catch an innocent in the crossfire or by ricochet. The defender has a good chance of being shot themselves, given the perps often have heavier weaponry. Given even worse luck, a “defender” might get shot by a cop.
We are talking about “improved scenarios” here. Not what one usually sees in movies. But, still... Greater love...
Chl holders are considerably better shots than average. My current project is 6 .45 long colt rounds into a 6 inch target at 25 yards. I am very close to meeting that objective.
Your knowledge of tactics is lacking. You don't have to kill an active shooter to seriously reduce his effective kill rate.
The mere fact that one of their "victims" was shooting back at them would definitely upset their rampage.
And, even a slight hit would seriously disrupt their ability to fire accurately and rapidly.
"Sportsmanship" rules don't apply: shoot them from behind, below the belt -- wherever... The goal is to disrupt or stop their dominance and ability to kill without endangering themselves.
As you mentioned, taking advantage of their vulnerability while reloading makes excellent tactical sense...
I heard an interview of a guy from a nearby office building that heard the shots, grabbed his pistol, secured his building, then went outside to secure the outside perimeter. He saw people through the trees get into a dark SUV and then they were driving very slowly. He thought that was odd, and watched them, and tried to ID them but the windows had a dark tint and he couldn’t see them.
They then turned away from him and went out another exit from the lot. The reporter asked him why he didn’t shoot! Paraphrased “Well, they were driving odd, but I had no idea who they were or if they were involved. The last thing I wanted to do was get involved with killing someone innocent. I was mainly concerned with protecting my building with my co-workers and family inside. I did give the police a description of the SUV because they weren’t driving like they were trying to flee the area - it seemed odd.”
So - at least he was ready. But also, he did have some time to get in a safe position, etc. Of course others at the party, if armed, might have had a similar opportunity to run down from another floor, etc.