Would the death toll at the Borderline Bar have been less if one of the patrons had been armed?
On November 7, the Borderline Bar and Grill in Thousand Oaks, California, a country-western music dance hall, was packed with young adults during college night. The dancing and drinking was interrupted by Ian David Long who entered the bar with pistol in hand and went about methodically shooting dead 11 country-western music fans. I say methodically because nine of the eleven victims died of multiple gunshot wounds.
Some pro-gunners will say, if only one of the citizens had been armed, implying that an armed citizen could have stopped the gunman. Oh yeah! They had something far better than an armed citizen at that bar. Two cops, a LA County deputy and a CHP officer, were outside the bar when they heard gunfire. The rushed inside and had a shootout with Long.
Did the two brave cops stop g unman? No, but Long killed LA Sheriff’s Sgt. Ron Helus, shooting him multiple times. The CHP officer managed to drag Helus outside so he could be rushed to a hospital. Long continued on his rampage until he decided to shoot himself.
Here’s another kicker. It has been reported that three off-duty LAPD officers were in the Borderline Bar during the shootings. The report did not say if any of them had their sidearm inside the bar.
Here you’ve got two cops intervening in the shooting, and in a shootout with the gunman, the only one who gets shot is one of the officers.
And as one police official said about another recent mass shooting, an armed citizen in a chaotic situation, like at the Aurora and Bataclan theaters or the Borderline Bar, is more likely to shoot himself or innocent bystanders than the gunman.
I have said several times on BGB that pro-gunners are full of shit when they claim an armed citizen could have stopped a shooter in a crowded theater or some other venue. That is not to say that an armed citizen could not stop a shooter, but that possibility is slim at best. A courageous unarmed citizen trying to disarm a shooter is more likely to stop him than an armed citizen … that is somewhat more likely.
There were five police officers in the Borderline Bar. Two were armed and exchanged gunfire with Long. The other three officers may or may not have been armed. I think the Borderline Bar shooting shows why pro-gunners are full of shit when they squawk, if only an armed citizen had been there.
9 comments:
I suppose BGB wants armed citizens to lay down their arms instead of attempting to eliminate the active shooter. An armed citizen trying to shoot an active shooter will probably hit other innocent people during the melee. That's going to happen because in a crowded situation where people are moving quickly some rounds will pass through the shooter possibly striking others.
That statement is a lot different than, "And as one police official said about another recent mass shooting, an armed citizen in a chaotic situation, like at the Aurora and Bataclan theaters or the Borderline Bar, is more likely to shoot himself or innocent bystanders than the gunman."
We discussed the active shooter scenario and if you are referring to me as the "police official", then you need to check your hearing aid batteries!
The only other statement that makes this blog what we call in Texas full of BULLSHIT is, "A courageous unarmed citizen trying to disarm a shooter is more likely to stop him than an armed citizen … that is somewhat more likely." That's called committing suicide.
The only thing different in Thousand Oaks was the fact that the shooter was a well trained combat service former U.S. Marine. Marines are trained to stay cool under fire and are excellent marksmen.
As a person familiar with active shooter training, I still believe the armed citizen should try and stop the shooter. There will probably be collateral damage but not nearly the number of people shot if the active shooter is left unabated.
No Trey, you are not the police official I referred to. As for BGB being "full of BULLSHIT," it's my bullshit against your BULLSHIT.
Carrying a gun may not guarantee you can stop an atrocity like this one, but it does give you another option. Running for an exit or hiding under a table are weak options. So is pleading to a deranged killer for mercy.
If that makes me a full of shit gun nut then so be it. Guilty as charged.
AS far as the basic question goes, in the real world, sometimes you do everything right and the situation turns to crap. Sometimes you do everything wrong and the situation turns out fine. I like to have options. One option is being able to shoot back. Will it help in any given situation, that is an open question.
BGB, this is a very interesting article from PoliceOne endorsing the use of concealed carry in active shooter scenarios. It was posted in July 2016.
The PoliceOne Firearms Corner
with Ron Avery
The value of CCW 'first responders' in active shooter situations
LE and government need to treat CCW holders as a valuable, volunteer resource and educate, coordinate and actively work with them.
I know of this type of training being taught by local LE.
Remember, "It's better to have and not need it than need it and not have it."
Holy shit Trey! One would almost think you believe that an armed citizen should kill as many innocent theatergoers as it takes to stop a gunman or that a SWAT team should do the same thing. In that case the armed citizen or the SWAT team are likely to shoot more innocent bystanders than the gunman would have killed.
BGB, This horse is dead. Stop kicking it.
QED. Hard to argue with such measured, well thought out reasoning as this last response from Howie.
Might as well face it Trey. Howie's got us on this one.
Last word. Shit!
Post a Comment