A Good Guy With a Gun Tried to Stop the Las Vegas Shooting

[JulesMaximus]

OR if everyone had CCW, this never would have happened in the first place. Why go into a walmart and fire off a round when you know every damn person in there is armed. It'll be like trying to rob a police station.

I think the best case you could ever hope for is maybe 5% of the public being armed and even that is probably a stretch. Most people are barely equipped enough to drive a car and you want them carrying guns?

Plus, you have to figure at least 50% of the population wants nothing to do with guns and probably a good percentage of the rest just don't want to hassle with it.

You would never get to a state where "every damn person in there is armed."

 

[Pulsar]

There are real details. This guy's best friend was with him right there when it went down. The friend took off and then Joseph went to pursue the shooter. It was a bad decision unfortunately.

I guess I'll just have to universally disagree with people like you, olaf, and others who think that trying to help is a bad decision.

During 9/11, some people ran away from the disaster. Many ran toward it to help. Numerous other examples can be heralded where people put others before themselves.

We could call that a bad decision. We could train an entire generation of people to believe that standing back and letting things like this happen is the 'right' thing to do.

Oh wait. We have. That's why for every beating, there's some idiot behind a cell phone saying "oh that's horrible". While a guy takes a gone and executes school children, folks hide behind doors. Or when high-jackers attempt to take over a flight and crash it into a building, the passengers do nothing.

It took 9/11 to teach people on planes to DO something if a problem arises. I wonder what type of event it's going to take to dissuade the 'do nothing' crowd. Doing nothing is NOT an option.

 

[Humpy]

Why go into a walmart and fire off a round when you know every damn person in there is armed.

Because crazy people are irrational.

The idea of every goober in a walmart firing their weapon in the attempt to stop someone else from firing their weapon is humorously frightening.

 

[Kadarin]

Another guy who thought that having CC made him Rambo. Hard lesson to learn and more proof that CC permits are useless and all gun ownership should be banned. If the guy listened to the killers and left he would have been alive today.

That's fucking idiotic.

A legally armed citizen who felt he had a duty to protect others is truly honorable in my book.

 

[amddude]

I guess I'll just have to universally disagree with people like you, olaf, and others who think that trying to help is a bad decision.

During 9/11, some people ran away from the disaster. Many ran toward it to help. Numerous other examples can be heralded where people put others before themselves.

We could call that a bad decision. We could train an entire generation of people to believe that standing back and letting things like this happen is the 'right' thing to do.

Oh wait. We have. That's why for every beating, there's some idiot behind a cell phone saying "oh that's horrible". While a guy takes a gone and executes school children, folks hide behind doors. Or when high-jackers attempt to take over a flight and crash it into a building, the passengers do nothing.

It took 9/11 to teach people on planes to DO something if a problem arises. I wonder what type of event it's going to take to dissuade the 'do nothing' crowd. Doing nothing is NOT an option.

I agree.

I think knowing that citizens will resist this kind of stuff is a good deterrent for the future.

 

[corwin]

I guess I'll just have to universally disagree with people like you, olaf, and others who think that trying to help is a bad decision.

During 9/11, some people ran away from the disaster. Many ran toward it to help. Numerous other examples can be heralded where people put others before themselves.

We could call that a bad decision. We could train an entire generation of people to believe that standing back and letting things like this happen is the 'right' thing to do.

Oh wait. We have. That's why for every beating, there's some idiot behind a cell phone saying "oh that's horrible". While a guy takes a gone and executes school children, folks hide behind doors. Or when high-jackers attempt to take over a flight and crash it into a building, the passengers do nothing.

It took 9/11 to teach people on planes to DO something if a problem arises. I wonder what type of event it's going to take to dissuade the 'do nothing' crowd. Doing nothing is NOT an option.

Well said...

 

[moonbogg]

I wouldn't. But because of the relatively slim chances of me needing to protect my wife and son I would rather rely on my wits than deal with the burden of carrying a weapon on me at all times.

These situations are very scary, but I lean toward what you said here. If I don't have a gun, and something happens, I am "all in" with regard to trying to think my way out and focus on escape.
If I have a gun, would I hesitate? Would I think to find a tactical position instead of escape? Would I think my chances were better to find a tactical position and try and survive that way?
I don't know, but I do know that once I draw my gun or am about to draw it, then I am all but committed to a firefight. I think winning a firefight is very difficult and even if you manage to actually hit the person, you can still get shot so easily. In this case, the guy didn't even get a shot off.
In a situation like this, my shit would have bolted.
In a gun fight, I have no reason to think I would win against even the most average criminal. Even with training and practice, the unpredictable nature of these situations, as well as difficulty in aiming a hand gun under pressure, makes me think my chances of getting shot are pretty damn good.
And don't troll me about not being able to aim a hand gun. I've seen videos of cops unload a whole mag at a stationary target and completely miss. Under pressure, pistol accuracy sucks unless you are damn good, as in way, way above average.

 

[tHa ShIzNiT]

Pulsar, I think you're comparing apples to oranges with these different scenarios. All I'm saying, is that I think that in this particular case, the right move was to get outta there. JMO.

In this situation the shooter only wanted to kill law enforcement types, so it wasn't a mass murder of everyone they could find. But obviously he didn't know that, and now we have hindsight.

 

[spidey07]

Don't get me wrong, I believe in good guys doing the right thing, but he did not. If you are given the choice to leave peacefully, CCW be damned. He may or may not have saved a life but he failed to save his own and possibly make CCW look bad in the process.

He is being called a hero by the police. He saved people's lives with his action.

 

[moonbogg]

He is being called a hero by the police. He saved people's lives with his action.

I know people want to honor him for his bravery, and he should be honored for that. But what you just said is bullshit. Who the hell did he save?

 

[Markbnj]

I guess I'll just have to universally disagree with people like you, olaf, and others who think that trying to help is a bad decision.

During 9/11, some people ran away from the disaster. Many ran toward it to help. Numerous other examples can be heralded where people put others before themselves.

We could call that a bad decision. We could train an entire generation of people to believe that standing back and letting things like this happen is the 'right' thing to do.

Oh wait. We have. That's why for every beating, there's some idiot behind a cell phone saying "oh that's horrible". While a guy takes a gone and executes school children, folks hide behind doors. Or when high-jackers attempt to take over a flight and crash it into a building, the passengers do nothing.

It took 9/11 to teach people on planes to DO something if a problem arises. I wonder what type of event it's going to take to dissuade the 'do nothing' crowd. Doing nothing is NOT an option.

As another poster said, those are not good comparisons. You're comparing situations in which the moment of last resort had clearly arrived, with situations in which that is not at all clear. There was nobody else to left to act on those planes, and there was no single agency or group that could fully respond to what happened on the ground on 9/11. Those people made the right decision, and showed good judgement. But extending that into the concept that intervening is always the noble and correct thing to do renders it little more than a useless platitude. Rational people evaluate each situation that arises on its own characteristics. There is no evidence that Wilcox needed to intervene in order to either prevent a tragedy or help in recovering from one.

 

[irishScott]

I wouldn't. But because of the relatively slim chances of me needing to protect my wife and son I would rather rely on my wits than deal with the burden of carrying a weapon on me at all times.

Good for you Cyrano de Bergerac. I hope you never walk into an unexpected situation where your "wits" are insufficient. In the meantime I'll carry my gun the same way I wear my seat-belt. If it's a constant "burden" to you then I agree you have the wrong mentality and shouldn't be carrying. In fact that's the primary trait of someone with a "rambo mentality", they take their carry way too seriously. Being proficient in the use of one's firearm does not require constant alertness.

For my part I've been in a situation where my "wits" told me to feign having a weapon in my pocket (I was unarmed at the time), and it worked; but if the two guys in question had been looking for something other than an easy score or called my bluff the "wittiest" person on earth wouldn't have been able to get me out of a fight with 2 larger guys, nor could they have foreseen the confrontation without a major dose of paranoia.

So to sum up, I agree that even with a firearm the smart thing to to do is run if you have the chance, and if you don't want to carry, fine. But don't equate your "wits" to carrying a firearm in terms of preparation. Bad stuff happens to good people in good areas doing exactly what they're supposed to do.

 

[irishScott]

As another poster said, those are not good comparisons. You're comparing situations in which the moment of last resort had clearly arrived, with situations in which that is not at all clear. There was nobody else to left to act on those planes, and there was no single agency or group that could fully respond to what happened on the ground on 9/11. Those people made the right decision, and showed good judgement. But extending that into the concept that intervening is always the noble and correct thing to do renders it little more than a useless platitude. Rational people evaluate each situation that arises on its own characteristics. There is no evidence that Wilcox needed to intervene in order to either prevent a tragedy or help in recovering from one.

Perhaps not in hindsight, but my understanding is the shooter ran into the walmart, fired a shot into the air and told everyone to get out. It could very well be that he heard the shot and assumed people were actually being killed.

In any case, reading the guy's mini-biography on another news site his family said he only carried sporadically, not even close to every day. Not typically the mark of a rambo.

Wilcox may have been mistaken from a bird's-eye-view, but that doesn't diminish his courage or intentions.

 

[moonbogg]

Good for you Cyrano de Bergerac. I hope you never walk into an unexpected situation where your "wits" are insufficient. In the meantime I'll carry my gun the same way I wear my seat-belt. If it's a constant "burden" to you then I agree you have the wrong mentality and shouldn't be carrying. In fact that's the primary trait of someone with a "rambo mentality", they take their carry way too seriously. Being proficient in the use of one's firearm does not require constant alertness.

For my part I've been in a situation where my "wits" told me to feign having a weapon in my pocket (I was unarmed at the time), and it worked; but if the two guys in question had been looking for something other than an easy score or called my bluff the "wittiest" person on earth wouldn't have been able to get me out of a fight with 2 larger guys, nor could they have foreseen the confrontation without a major dose of paranoia.

So to sum up, I agree that even with a firearm the smart thing to to do is run if you have the chance, and if you don't want to carry, fine. But don't equate your "wits" to carrying a firearm in terms of preparation. Bad stuff happens to good people in good areas doing exactly what they're supposed to do.

Having a gun will guarantee you are the first person they start shooting at as well. I suppose that isn't worth your consideration though.
If you are in a bank and 3 guys bust in with rifles and they see your hand gun or otherwise learn you have one and say, "Oh, look. we got ourselves a hero. You going to shoot me with that?" Bang, you die first.

 

[spidey07]

I know people want to honor him for his bravery, and he should be honored for that. But what you just said is bullshit. Who the hell did he save?

The police are saying the woman was posing as a regular shopper and was going to ambush police when they found her husband. Mr. Wilcox, through his actions of engaging and about to shoot the man changed their plan and also gave away their position to officers because of the shots fired.

It's not hard to figure out. He disrupted their plan to kill officers.

 

[irishScott]

Having a gun will guarantee you are the first person they start shooting at as well. I suppose that isn't worth your consideration though.
If you are in a bank and 3 guys bust in with rifles and they see your hand gun or otherwise learn you have one and say, "Oh, look. we got ourselves a hero. You going to shoot me with that?" Bang, you die first.

It actually is worth my consideration, it's one reason why I don't open carry. You wouldn't know I have my gun on me to look at me. I'm just another clean cut white guy in khaki cargo shorts, a polo and TEVA sandals.

If I'm in a bank and 3 guys bust in with rifles, telling everyone to get down because they're robbing the place, I'm staying down. I'm certainly not risking my life to save the FDIC money. But if the robbers take it too far and start shooting people at random, I might very well decide the risk is worth it. That's a choice my unarmed companions will not have.

If the robbers learn that I have a handgun, presuming they didn't ask for it earlier I imagine I'll turn it over while pointing out that I haven't tried to shoot them and am no threat to them. However the odds of being in that particular armchaired situation are less likely than being struck by lightning, so I'm not that concerned.

Regardless, there is no violent situation I can imagine where I would not want to have a gun on me. Why reduce my ability to defend myself?

 

[irishScott]

As for the general opinion on intervention, I bet there are a few people happy this concealed carry permit holder didn't run away:

http://fox13now.com/2012/04/26/two-stabbed-in-downtown-slc-parking-lot/

 

[TechBoyJK]

Another guy who thought that having CC made him Rambo. Hard lesson to learn and more proof that CC permits are useless and all gun ownership should be banned. If the guy listened to the killers and left he would have been alive today.

isn't trolling an offense punishable by banning?

 

[moonbogg]

The police are saying the woman was posing as a regular shopper and was going to ambush police when they found her husband. Mr. Wilcox, through his actions of engaging and about to shoot the man changed their plan and also gave away their position to officers because of the shots fired.

It's not hard to figure out. He disrupted their plan to kill officers.

I hope officers lives were saved. I'm not convinced of it, but we cant know what would have happened otherwise at this point.

 

[corwin]

I hope officers lives were saved. I'm not convinced of it, but we cant know what would have happened otherwise at this point.

Given that scenario, which sounds very plausible, he quite likely died saving police lives...perhaps even several of them

 

[Humpy]

Given that scenario, which sounds very plausible, he quite likely died saving police lives...perhaps even several of them

Based on the timeline I read it is not a plausible scenario. Wilcox was dead/dying by the time the police arrived. It is unlikely that the woman could have posed as a regular shopper (whatever that means) being that the police knew the suspects were a man and a woman.

Wilcox foolishly got himself killed for what looks like no good reason.

 

[corwin]

Based on the timeline I read it is not a plausible scenario. Wilcox was dead/dying by the time the police arrived. It is unlikely that the woman could have posed as a regular shopper (whatever that means) being that the police knew the suspects were a man and a woman.

Wilcox foolishly got himself killed for what looks like no real reason.

Seriously? She was in some way concealing the weapons she had on her, the police would have had no way to know she was involved with him, standing in the open, she gets behind them as they confront hubby and takes them down...having already blown that cover by her coming out and shooting Wilcox kind of does make it plausible...knowing that a "woman" was involved would in no way enable them to know it was her

 

[Humpy]

Seriously? She was in some way concealing the weapons she had on her, the police would have had no way to know she was involved with him, standing in the open, she gets behind them as they confront hubby and takes them down...having already blown that cover by her coming out and shooting Wilcox kind of does make it plausible...knowing that a "woman" was involved would in no way enable them to know it was her

The pair had ordered everyone to leave making the building mostly empty. The police arrived in two teams and split up through the building guided by an officer viewing the surveillance system monitors. The couple did not appear to split up. The police would have had to be as incompetent as Wilcox in order to be fooled into seeing the woman as a regular shopper.

 

[Pulsar]

Based on the timeline I read it is not a plausible scenario. Wilcox was dead/dying by the time the police arrived. It is unlikely that the woman could have posed as a regular shopper (whatever that means) being that the police knew the suspects were a man and a woman.

Wilcox foolishly got himself killed for what looks like no good reason.

There we have it ladies and gentlemen. Because Humpy has 20/20 hindsight, he feels that he's morally justified in calling a man who was doing his best to protect others foolish, and calling his death meaningless.

I sincerely hope you're never in need of a hero, policeman, or anyone else who might have to put their lives on the line in an attempt to possibly save yours. Especially since you seem to believe the judgement should be based on the outcome rather than the intent.

 

[corwin]

The pair had ordered everyone to leave making the building mostly empty. The police arrived in two teams and split up through the building guided by an officer viewing the surveillance system monitors. The couple did not appear to split up. The police would have had to be as incompetent as Wilcox in order to be fooled into seeing the woman as a regular shopper.

"Mostly" empty...and the couple was thrown off track after having to shoot Wilcox dimwit, had that not happened she could have continued to feign not being involved until she got behind the officers going after her husband...it isn't rocket science what they were planning, he was the distraction to get her behind the police, then it would be a cross fire situation...Wilcox messed up their plans