I am just glad a good guy with a gun was there to stop it. I do wish there would of been more like him there. (Meaning armed citizens).
I am just glad a good guy with a gun was there to stop it. I do wish there would of been more like him there. (Meaning armed citizens).
The mall took steps to insure that was unlikely.
I'm curious about what security company it was. I haven't seen it mentioned.
Wonder if Falconer unloaded and showed clear after putting the terrorist down?
only if it was some sort of homemade shank. I'm betting it was an actual everyday knife.
Yeah. Looks like in MN the only prohibition is "switchblades".
Yeah. Looks like in MN the only prohibition is "switchblades".
See, that's why I like you Jamil. You look things up.
I wonder why there's a disconnect between the realization that armed average joes could stop these attacks just as surely as off duty cops if they were allowed to be armed. There's still a pervasive attitude that somehow, "only cops and military" should have guns and average people are still scary when they tuck a gun in their hip.
If anything, these incidents should highlight how effective an armed citizenry is. We need to work to educate folks on how quickly these situations are resolved as soon as a good guy with a gun shows up. Why are we hamstringing public safety by only allowing government agents to carry firearms?
The mall took steps to insure that was unlikely.
I wonder why there's a disconnect between the realization that armed average joes could stop these attacks just as surely as off duty cops if they were allowed to be armed. There's still a pervasive attitude that somehow, "only cops and military" should have guns and average people are still scary when they tuck a gun in their hip.
If anything, these incidents should highlight how effective an armed citizenry is. We need to work to educate folks on how quickly these situations are resolved as soon as a good guy with a gun shows up. Why are we hamstringing public safety by only allowing government agents to carry firearms?
Exactly why we should label him as an armed citizen, instead of off duty cop. ( Cops are average Joes, especially when they are off duty)I wonder why there's a disconnect between the realization that armed average joes could stop these attacks just as surely as off duty cops if they were allowed to be armed. There's still a pervasive attitude that somehow, "only cops and military" should have guns and average people are still scary when they tuck a gun in their hip.
If anything, these incidents should highlight how effective an armed citizenry is. We need to work to educate folks on how quickly these situations are resolved as soon as a good guy with a gun shows up. Why are we hamstringing public safety by only allowing government agents to carry firearms?
I wonder why there's a disconnect between the realization that armed average joes could stop these attacks just as surely as off duty cops if they were allowed to be armed. There's still a pervasive attitude that somehow, "only cops and military" should have guns and average people are still scary when they tuck a gun in their hip.
If anything, these incidents should highlight how effective an armed citizenry is. We need to work to educate folks on how quickly these situations are resolved as soon as a good guy with a gun shows up. Why are we hamstringing public safety by only allowing government agents to carry firearms?
Im glad alls well that ended well, but I personally, think his tactics sucked, as far as the article you linked described. Yes, he prevailed, and is a hero, but if he teaches the same thing he displayed via this article. His tactics SUCK! He identified, shot, but then quit? Then he shot again, and quit? Only after he was near being overcome, or falling as he retreated, (based on the article)did he end the encounter! Again, his tactics sucked! Hopefully his students realize this, and don't try to emulate him! Shoot until the threat is neutralized, to me, that is a dead guy, because dead guys are truly neutral!
We are ALWAYS taught to fire and reasses. Fire, subject falls, we will asses the situation. If we need to reengage, then we do so, then we asses again. We do not shoot to kill, that is a misnomer. WE shoot to stop the threat, many suspects do not die when we shoot them. The reason they do not die is because they were shot and stopped the aggression therefore no further shots were needed. Now sometimes it does take a suspect to be killed to cease the aggression. Now is that what he taught? I dono. Most of us PD firearms trainers know that there are 2 sets of rules, LE and non-LE. WHat works for one might not be legal for the other. Add the stress of actually facing active aggression and what you PLAN on doing might not actually happen that way. As Mike Tyson put it so well, "Everybody has a plan until they get punched in the mouth."Let's not be too judgemental about things that we don't understand as well as we might think.Look, I took what was stated in the article, and critiqued it! His stated tactics ****ing sucked! so back 'atcha with the rolled eyes!
and while you're at the rolled eyes thing, name one trainer or firearms training company that would tell you to shoot, stop, wait until attacked again, shoot again, stop, wait until attacked again and shoot again?