Posted on 12/11/2007 12:01:33 PM PST by ironwill
COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. (AP) - The man who killed four people at a church and missionary training center died of a self-inflicted shotgun wound, police said Tuesday.
Matthew Murray, 24, was struck multiple times by a security officer at New Life Church Sunday but died after firing a single shot at himself, the El Paso County Coroner's Office concluded after an autopsy.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
You don't need to see a shotgun fired to know it's different than a handgun.
I do note that the CNN story you linked doesn't really have the corner's statement, just a quote from it. No shotgun mentioned, and in fact that story is still saying "assault rifle".
"It seemed like it was me, the gunman and God," she said, her hands trembling as she recounted the shooting during a news conference.
This is the kind of officer they needed at Columbine.
My sweet FRiend! New Year’s Resolution, not to be broken. I recall the day so well, like yesterday!
Funny, EMS guys are always pissing and whining about how little they get paid, but they continue doing the job.
Bottom line: the money isn't why they do the job, and it ain't for public spirit, either.
Personally, I’m not sure I believe the cops at this point.
Sounds like an effort to discredit Assam and discredit the use of firearms by ordinary citizens to protect themselves.
'Zactly!
“Comment #155 is kinda relevant for you guys, too.”
If you think I was trashing Ms. Assam...wrong.
I was only speculating on what might have gotten her fired; partly because
she said she’d “hit bottom” before becoming an observant Christian.
Whether she was fairly or unfairly fired in MN, to me the miracle-turn is
the WHOLE story of how this lady ended up in the right time, the
right place, and did the right thing. Thus saving more than a few lives.
I wouldn’t be suprised if her whole life-journey wouldn’t made a
decent bio-pic...the sort of inspirational type of movie you might
see Hollywood put out until The Sixties.
In NOT getting a license, you have to be able to say to yourself that you are willing to run and hide while a madman is killing innocent people, possibly including you and those you love.
I know, I have one! I was offering one possible explanation for why he wasnt instantly dead after being shot and like I said, I hadnt seen what caliber gun she had and hadnt heard anything about body armor until now.
Most folks dont realize that someone shot with a rifle is around 85% likely to die, whereas it is much lower around 25% or so with a handgun. I dont remember the exact percentage but I read it years ago and I was surprised at the huge difference.
The point is many firearms dont instantly do their work like in the movies, even if the person shot dies it wont always be instantly.
Either way, its a moot point, the thing is they are already trying to discredit this woman and what she did which was stop a domestic terrorist attack with her gun that they dont want her or us to own.
Good point. Given that I've seen no direct quote from the coroner stating a shotgun was involved, I'm suspecting that's media misreporting too.
“Anybody who has taken another human life, even in self-defense, is forever changed.”
Agreed.
My father shot and killed a man in self defense. It was probably as “good” a self defense shooting as there ever was.
The guy was an escaped convicted murderer armed with a .45 cal pistol, and had stated his intention to kill my father.
Dad had occasional nightmares about it for the rest of his life. It does change a person, even when they know 100% that they did what they had to do.
I am late to this thread; forgive me if I’m repeating something.
If this was a shotgun - how did he kill himself easily? Generally only handguns are convenient for that. It’s possible of course, but 1 would think in the heat of this kind of situation 1 couldn’t maneuver a shotgun very well to blow 1self away.
Your logic is not lost on me. My immediate thought is that if we can be so cavalier about taking life by way of Roe v. Wade then shooting someone in self defense or defense of others, as soldiers do, should follow.
But, does it? I live in San Antonio and I hear that many soldiers who’ve been injured in Iraq are devastated by their experiences. It’s got to be [words escape me...]
I certainly don't see anything "cavalier" about carrying a concealed firearm.
A firearm is a tool. Like a fire extinquisher or a defibrillator, if the tool is present when needed and there is a person trained sufficiently in its use, it can save innocent lives that would otherwise be lost.
Nobody that I know of purchases a fire extinquisher because they want to have a fire or because they enjoy fighting fires. Instead, they are driven by the risk of not having the extinguisher available when it would be the best tool. A stove-top grease fire can be quenched in seconds rather than allowing it to consume a major part of one's home while waiting for the fire department to respond.
Some reports of this incident include a description of one man begging other armed people, who are described as taking no action, to let him have their gun. The point is that even if you never have the intention of firing the gun, other innocent people can take advantage of the availability of the tool.
If I lived in a "shall issue" state I would encourage my wife to carry in her purse, with the expectation that I would be the one to use that gun, time permitting. It's just a tool. Having it does not obligate one to take any particular action with it. Not having it DOES obligate one to find some other solution to a potential problem.
Your points are well taken. And, many FReepers here witnessed my being instructed in the proper way on firearm usage back on April 19, earlier this year. I’m just not accustomed to the kick from a glock and I may not get to be. And if I can’t then I won’t be able get the CCL, unless I try a Bersa 380.
Though true, there is little likelihood that such soldiers would have been less devastated had they been unarmed at the time that they were injured.
Some say that the first rule of gunfighting is "Have a gun". But a better first rule is, "If you have a choice of whether to go to a gun fight, DON'T GO!"
Several years ago I had a need to visit a person in south central Sacramento. The person I was visiting assured me that the police don't patrol that area and won't stop people violating traffic laws. After dark, the streets and parking lots belong to the drug dealers.
I considered taking a gun with me. But that would violate my preferred version of the First Rule, "Don't go!". I did decide that it was safe enough carrying just a stun gun.
Soldiers don't have a choice in carrying out their duties. Innocent victims of madmen like the one in this incident don't have a choice either. Most of the critical decisions are made by the criminal and imposed on other people. These people are then further limited by decisions they made prior to the commission of the crime, based on provably over-optimistic assessments of the threat level.
At the risk of hijacking this thread, let's look at your situation.
The "kick" of a gun is the result of the reaction of the gun to the expanding gases which expel the bullet. Somewhat counter-intuitively, there will tend to be less perceived recoil when firing a heavy gun, given a particular cartridge and barrel length.
If you choose a very small, and thus very light, Glock and you fire a powerful cartridge, then you will feel a good kick. If you choose a larger gun firing a less powerful round, then the kick will be much less.
To reduce the kick the most, choose the heaviest gun possible for any given cartridge. The trade-off, of course, then becomes that the heavier, and thus larger, gun is more difficult to conceal.
I think Smith and Wesson makes a titanium revolver in .357 magnum that weighs less than a pound. That's probably going to sting a lot when fired, making practice with it unpleasant.
The opposite situation would be getting a full size steel gun in a less powerful cartridge.
I've also read that the "blow-back" designs, which I believe includes the Bersa 380, have to have heavier springs to hold the chamber closed without it being locked. This makes the slide harder to operate for someone with smaller hands and also makes the recoil feel sharper. There is a subjective element to recoil.
What sort of qualification testing are you faced with that the recoil would be of such concern? The problem I have read about is one of not being willing to practice due to unpleasant recoil. But I haven't run across that as a problem in qualifying.
It's an excellent bet that the perp in any mass shooting these days will be dressed in black....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.