Knee Deep in Water Chloe
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 21:04:44 GMT -5
Posts: 14,248
Mini-Profile Name Color: 1980e6
|
Post by Knee Deep in Water Chloe on Jan 24, 2016 16:14:27 GMT -5
Oh, I missed that you were home. That's good!
|
|
andi9899
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 6, 2011 10:22:29 GMT -5
Posts: 31,334
|
Post by andi9899 on Jan 24, 2016 19:16:26 GMT -5
Does anyone know why the guy snapped?
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Jan 24, 2016 19:22:31 GMT -5
I'm glad you are out of there. Stay out until you know where this guy is. And no, she did not deserve this. We have no idea what is swimming around in his head at this point, but you're right - there's no way this should have happened. Then again, there often is no way to really predict a "snap" in someone, even someone who isn't all quite right. And you are limited as to what you can say or do until someone does finally let go and the real crazy starts up. I don't agree with it, and think reporting should happen sooner if there is suspected mental illness. But I do not make the rules. He's supposed to have a diagnosed mental illness. One thing several people commented on was that he was unusually talkative and in a good mood yesterday. I don't see him often, but I did see him yesterday before I left. He was talking to one of my friends while I was standing there and I actually said "this is one of the craziest conversations I've ever heard" and he chuckled. He was saying his name was some name that wasn't really his name and some stuff about some other names, I wasn't really paying attention at first. Then he asked if we saw Pete standing behind him. No one was standing behind him. Then he looked serious and said "those really are the names of people I left in Vietnam". We thought he was just joking around except for the Vietnam part, but maybe that all was a sign that he was off his meds or something. Sounds like a psychotic break. I'm sorry for the guy but the important thing at this point is to capture him and get him to a safe place for him and for anyone else he happens to know or come across. I sure hope the woman he injured is okay!
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Jan 24, 2016 19:24:22 GMT -5
Does anyone know why the guy snapped? If he was being treated for a mental illness, he may have stopped taking his medications or they may not have been working well for him. Sometimes, people who are suffering from mental illness just "lose it".
|
|
gregintenn
Senior Member
Resident hillbilly
Joined: Dec 28, 2015 17:07:59 GMT -5
Posts: 2,840
|
Post by gregintenn on Jan 24, 2016 19:33:43 GMT -5
This, folks, it why you need a damned gun, and know how to use it.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 13, 2024 13:18:12 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2016 20:34:43 GMT -5
This, folks, it why you need a damned gun, and know how to use it. I have guns and I know how to use them. I even have great aim in a controlled environment. But ordinary citizens are prohibited from bringing weapons onto federal property and the possibility of facing federal charges and losing my job is kind of a big deal, so I don't have weapons when I go to work. Not even a pocket knife.
|
|
gregintenn
Senior Member
Resident hillbilly
Joined: Dec 28, 2015 17:07:59 GMT -5
Posts: 2,840
|
Post by gregintenn on Jan 24, 2016 20:36:13 GMT -5
This, folks, it why you need a damned gun, and know how to use it. I have guns and I know how to use them. I even have great aim in a controlled environment. But ordinary citizens are prohibited from bringing weapons onto federal property and the possibility of facing federal charges and losing my job is kind of a big deal, so I don't have weapons when I go to work. Not even a pocket knife. This should be changed. Until then, concealed means concealed. If I need one for a life or death situation, my job be damned. If not, no one is the wiser. The person who was attacked should get the best lawyer money can buy and sue your employer for failing to provide them with a safe working environment.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 13, 2024 13:18:12 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2016 20:38:35 GMT -5
If the woman who was assaulted had a gun, she'd more likely be dead rather than in recovery...
|
|
gregintenn
Senior Member
Resident hillbilly
Joined: Dec 28, 2015 17:07:59 GMT -5
Posts: 2,840
|
Post by gregintenn on Jan 24, 2016 20:39:42 GMT -5
If the woman who was assaulted had a gun, she'd more likely be dead rather than in recovery... How's that?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 13, 2024 13:18:12 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2016 20:54:09 GMT -5
|
|
gregintenn
Senior Member
Resident hillbilly
Joined: Dec 28, 2015 17:07:59 GMT -5
Posts: 2,840
|
Post by gregintenn on Jan 24, 2016 20:56:44 GMT -5
O.k., and each month the NRA magazine, the Rifleman dedicates an entire page of news stories from various places in the U.S. that describe law abiding citizens successfully protecting themselves with a firearm. I'll not provide a link. You'll need to join the NRA to receive the publication and read them for yourself.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 13, 2024 13:18:12 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2016 20:58:48 GMT -5
It doesn't change that fact that statistically women in particular are more likely to be killed by a gun than stop an assault.
|
|
gregintenn
Senior Member
Resident hillbilly
Joined: Dec 28, 2015 17:07:59 GMT -5
Posts: 2,840
|
Post by gregintenn on Jan 24, 2016 21:04:46 GMT -5
It doesn't change that fact that statistically women in particular are more likely to be killed by a gun than stop an assault. Tell you what, oped. There have been three times in my life I had concrete reason to believe I needed a gun for my survival and well being. Two of those times, my wife was with me, and would tell you the same thing. Luckily, in all three of those situations, I didn't have to fire a single shot in order to prevent harm to myself, and in the two cases, my wife. In each of these, the sight of the firearm negated the situation. That doesn't always happen, and I was very lucky it happened that way for me. The next time, and I hope there's not one, I may have to use it. I don't know how a bullet fired from a gun knows whether a woman fired it or not. I do know there's more to self defense than just having a gun, but the gun is a handy tool for it.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 13, 2024 13:18:12 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2016 21:08:28 GMT -5
Actually, statistically, the fact that you felt the need to draw your gun three times to danger in your life is more likely to indicate that your gun leads you into a false security, leading you in to riskier places, or inciting you to escalate a situation which luckily the other party did not also choose to escalate in return. In other words your behavior with the gun is ultimately more likely to place your wife in danger than to save her.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,912
|
Post by zibazinski on Jan 24, 2016 21:10:30 GMT -5
Actually if you take the CPL class your instructor tells you NOT to go into an area where you feel the need to carry. Very wise advice. Unless you're nuts, you don't go looking for trouble.
|
|
gregintenn
Senior Member
Resident hillbilly
Joined: Dec 28, 2015 17:07:59 GMT -5
Posts: 2,840
|
Post by gregintenn on Jan 24, 2016 21:11:30 GMT -5
Actually, statistically, the fact that you felt the need to draw your gun three times to danger in your life is more likely to indicate that your gun leads you into a false security, leading you in to riskier places, or inciting you to escalate a situation which luckily the other party did not also choose to escalate in return. In other words your behavior with the gun is ultimately more likely to place your wife in danger tha to save her. Is that right? 1)In a mall parking lot walking to our car. 2)purchasing gas at a gas station. 3)(this one I was by myself)Riding a 4 wheeler on a gravel country road. Some risky places indeed. Everywhere is a risky place.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 13, 2024 13:18:12 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2016 21:12:42 GMT -5
I'm explaining what statistics tell us regarding women and guns. I'm done now though. I posted the links. If you don't want to read them, I don't really care...
|
|
milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Post by milee on Jan 24, 2016 21:13:03 GMT -5
It doesn't change that fact that statistically women in particular are more likely to be killed by a gun than stop an assault. Anecdotes aren't equal to statistics or studies, but my anecdotal observation agrees with the studies and stories you posted.
My husband is a Range Safety Officer and regularly competes in something called Action Pistol. I think of it as a little like running an obstacle course while shooting. Each participant is given a scenario and then judged on how quickly and accurately s/he shoots the described course. An example might be that your gun is laying on a table and you must start with your hands under the table. When the buzzer sounds, you must pick up your gun, run to the front of the marked area, lean around a pillar and shoot at a stationary target 25' away. Once you hit that target, you must then run in a prescribed way to the next area where you must shoot at a series of swaying targets.
Even with a very controlled scenario (nobody is shooting back or otherwise threatening you), it's amazing how difficult it is to shoot accurately and quickly. Even people who have decades of experience (police, military, hunters) shooting struggle with this. Having shot some of the courses myself and also seen the experts shoot a course, it seems really unlikely to me that most people would be able to shoot accurately in a high pressure attack situation. I think the stories in the NRA magazine (and yes - we get it, so I've seen the stories) are true but more likely represent people who got very, very lucky rather than are an example of what most people could or would do in a similar situation.
|
|
milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Post by milee on Jan 24, 2016 21:19:27 GMT -5
This, folks, it why you need a damned gun, and know how to use it. Seriously? Are you familiar with the "21 Foot" perimeter that law enforcement often uses for training?
It obviously will vary by person, but it's a rough guideline that establishes a safe boundary. It's based on some tests that showed that an average officer needs 1.5 seconds to draw and fire his/her gun and that an average attacker can cover 21 feet of distance in that time. Again, not hard and fast rule, but many self-defense and law enforcement agencies use this guideline for training. If an armed attacker is within 21 feet, you are likely to be toast even if you have a gun.
So are you saying that the female supervisor would be more than 21' away when the employee went berserk, giving her time to draw and accurately fire a gun? Or are you saying that they'd be in an office together at a distance closer than 21' but that the female supervisor would already have her gun out and aimed at the guy?
None of that seems very likely to me. Oped's suggestion that even if the supervisor did manage to reach for her gun, it would have been taken from her and possibly used against her seems a lot more likely.
|
|
gregintenn
Senior Member
Resident hillbilly
Joined: Dec 28, 2015 17:07:59 GMT -5
Posts: 2,840
|
Post by gregintenn on Jan 24, 2016 21:24:43 GMT -5
It doesn't change that fact that statistically women in particular are more likely to be killed by a gun than stop an assault. Anecdotes aren't equal to statistics or studies, but my anecdotal observation agrees with the studies and stories you posted.
My husband is a Range Safety Officer and regularly competes in something called Action Pistol. I think of it as a little like running an obstacle course while shooting. Each participant is given a scenario and then judged on how quickly and accurately s/he shoots the described course. An example might be that your gun is laying on a table and you must start with your hands under the table. When the buzzer sounds, you must pick up your gun, run to the front of the marked area, lean around a pillar and shoot at a stationary target 25' away. Once you hit that target, you must then run in a prescribed way to the next area where you must shoot at a series of swaying targets.
Even with a very controlled scenario (nobody is shooting back or otherwise threatening you), it's amazing how difficult it is to shoot accurately and quickly. Even people who have decades of experience (police, military, hunters) shooting struggle with this. Having shot some of the courses myself and also seen the experts shoot a course, it seems really unlikely to me that most people would be able to shoot accurately in a high pressure attack situation. I think the stories in the NRA magazine (and yes - we get it, so I've seen the stories) are true but more likely represent people who got very, very lucky rather than are an example of what most people could or would do in a similar situation.
Yes, I'm quite familiar with that. I'm also saying that standing there taking a beating isn't a winning plan. If she'd been armed, and aware of her surroundings, she'd stood a lot better chance of winning this battle than she did otherwise. You realize he could just as easily killed her as not, right? (a bit off topic) I cannot overemphasize being aware of one's surroundings, whether or not you choose to go armed. So many people today wander around like zombies with their face planted in a smart phone. This makes an easy target for criminals.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 13, 2024 13:18:12 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2016 21:30:23 GMT -5
As much as I appreciate the right to own my guns and carry them lawfully in certain situations if I choose to, I'm smart enough to recognize that being a good shot in a controlled environment is very different from being out on the streets in a tricky situation. I'm much more confident in my abilities in my home when I'm the only person there, where i know the layout and what sounds are likely to come from where, than unfamiliar territory or when other innocent people are around. I don't have a problem with responsible , stable people owning guns, but I don't think more guns will solve the problems we have with violence.
|
|
milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Post by milee on Jan 24, 2016 21:32:14 GMT -5
Anecdotes aren't equal to statistics or studies, but my anecdotal observation agrees with the studies and stories you posted.
My husband is a Range Safety Officer and regularly competes in something called Action Pistol. I think of it as a little like running an obstacle course while shooting. Each participant is given a scenario and then judged on how quickly and accurately s/he shoots the described course. An example might be that your gun is laying on a table and you must start with your hands under the table. When the buzzer sounds, you must pick up your gun, run to the front of the marked area, lean around a pillar and shoot at a stationary target 25' away. Once you hit that target, you must then run in a prescribed way to the next area where you must shoot at a series of swaying targets.
Even with a very controlled scenario (nobody is shooting back or otherwise threatening you), it's amazing how difficult it is to shoot accurately and quickly. Even people who have decades of experience (police, military, hunters) shooting struggle with this. Having shot some of the courses myself and also seen the experts shoot a course, it seems really unlikely to me that most people would be able to shoot accurately in a high pressure attack situation. I think the stories in the NRA magazine (and yes - we get it, so I've seen the stories) are true but more likely represent people who got very, very lucky rather than are an example of what most people could or would do in a similar situation.
Yes, I'm quite familiar with that. I'm also saying that standing there taking a beating isn't a winning plan. If she'd been armed, and aware of her surroundings, she'd stood a lot better chance of winning this battle than she did otherwise. You realize he could just as easily killed her as not, right? (a bit off topic) I cannot overemphasize being aware of one's surroundings, whether or not you choose to go armed. So many people today wander around like zombies with their face planted in a smart phone. This makes an easy target for criminals. WTH? This was a work setting. The supervisor might (or might not) have noticed the employee was acting differently, but that still wouldn't have made it appropriate for her to pull a gun on him. Nothing you're writing makes any sense at all for a workplace situation.
As an employer, I consider employees who bring a gun to work as much a threat to workplace safety as employees with PTSD or schizophrenia. The idea that a supervisor might have noticed this employee was "off" and pulled a gun to control the situation is crazy. She would have been more likely to have been shot herself or to have shot another random employee.
You are dreaming or haven't spent much time around people practicing shooting under pressure if you think otherwise.
|
|
gregintenn
Senior Member
Resident hillbilly
Joined: Dec 28, 2015 17:07:59 GMT -5
Posts: 2,840
|
Post by gregintenn on Jan 24, 2016 21:32:48 GMT -5
As much as I appreciate the right to own my guns and carry them lawfully in certain situations if I choose to, I'm smart enough to recognize that being a good shot in a controlled environment is very different from being out on the streets in a tricky situation. I'm much more confident in my abilities in my home when I'm the only person there, where i know the layout and what sounds are likely to come from where, than unfamiliar territory or when other innocent people are around. I don't have a problem with responsible , stable people owning guns, but I don't think more guns will solve the problems we have with violence. Do you recall a mass shooting recently that didn't occur in a "gun free zone"?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 13, 2024 13:18:12 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2016 21:52:40 GMT -5
As much as I appreciate the right to own my guns and carry them lawfully in certain situations if I choose to, I'm smart enough to recognize that being a good shot in a controlled environment is very different from being out on the streets in a tricky situation. I'm much more confident in my abilities in my home when I'm the only person there, where i know the layout and what sounds are likely to come from where, than unfamiliar territory or when other innocent people are around. I don't have a problem with responsible , stable people owning guns, but I don't think more guns will solve the problems we have with violence. Do you recall a mass shooting recently that didn't occur in a "gsun free zone"? I think that's an issue that requires us to think a little deeper than "more people should carry guns" to properly address the problem.
|
|
milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Post by milee on Jan 24, 2016 21:57:00 GMT -5
Do you recall a mass shooting recently that didn't occur in a "gun free zone"? Red herring. Has nothing to do with whether it's appropriate or effective to carry a gun in a workplace setting. Just like being aware of surroundings and not walking around with a smartphone has nothing to do with if it's appropriate or effective to carry a gun in a workplace setting. And your story about the mall parking lot, gas station and ATV has nothing to do with whether it's appropriate or effective to carry a gun in a workplace setting.
This was an employee who attacked a supervisor in an enclosed office - a small space. They were most likely in close proximity, so unless the supervisor was sitting there with her gun drawn and pointing at the employee (highly unlikely and even more highly unprofessional), having a gun would not have helped her. In fact, given that she was female, it is much more likely that if she had tried to pull out a gun the result would have been worse since the attacker could have taken it away and used it against her or then had a weapon with which to shoot up the workplace.
Guns have their place. This isn't it. If you can't see that, you're not objective enough to be entrusted with one IMHO.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 13, 2024 13:18:12 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2016 22:01:58 GMT -5
I'd actually love to talk to the people Greg pulled a gun on in the parking lot, gas station and ATF situations. I'm betting they also tell those stories, but in a slightly different way.
|
|
milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Post by milee on Jan 24, 2016 22:09:11 GMT -5
I'd actually love to talk to the people Greg pulled a gun on in the parking lot, gas station and ATF situations. I'm betting they also tell those stories, but in a slightly different way. I don't know. I think it's very possible he felt threatened and felt the gun helped.
But then again, having lived in Phoenix (and I had finance clients including methadone clinics in gangland plus I was a CASA for foster kids, who never seemed to live in the gun free parts of town) for 15 years and never carrying a gun anywhere, I could tell plenty of stories where I felt threatened but it all turned out OK, too. Once I was even chased by a gang member - I have never run so fast in heels and a pencil skirt. So because I have stories where I escaped harm without having to flash a gun or shoot anybody, does that mean nobody should carry a gun? I don't think so. Like Pink, I think there's an appropriate time and place. Inside a workplace probably isn't it, though...
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 13, 2024 13:18:12 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2016 22:12:52 GMT -5
Honestly. I'm in high-crime areas all the time and I rarely have a gun with me. I didn't have to take a class or have someone tell me what milee said about the 21 foot rule or whatever it was. My common sense says that if someone is already close to me with intentions to harm me, it's probably too late to try to pull my gun, cock it, and aim well enough to hit them and only them. To me that's a no-brainer.
The office where the attack started is tiny, maybe 10x10. I think she would have been better off being strong as an ox than having a gun.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 13, 2024 13:18:12 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2016 22:15:47 GMT -5
Typing on this tablet is a pita. By the time I get a post together, miles has already posted my thoughts lol. So I'll just be quiet.
|
|
ken a.k.a OMK
Senior Associate
They killed Kenny, the bastards.
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 14:39:20 GMT -5
Posts: 14,238
Location: Maryland
|
Post by ken a.k.a OMK on Jan 24, 2016 22:21:39 GMT -5
Why do some of you think guns are the answer to all violence? Should we go back to the wild west? If you feel safer carrying a gun then OK. I don't feel safer seeing you carry a gun into a store. I had a guy flash his gun at me in a parking lot. If I was carrying one he'd be dead. Just another idiot with the power of having a gun and showing it off.
|
|