A hypothetical question for someone that packs a gun (concealed carry)

[Bandit]

You are in a large shopping mall and see someone enter carrying an AR-15 or similar weapon. What do you do? Do you ignore it and consider it normal behavior? Do you approach the person and try to discern their intentions? Do you run for the hills? Do you open fire? Do you notify authorities? Do you attempt to confine the person? Would you consider the person a threat? Just curious because of that nut that entered JC Pennys with an AR-15 just to intimidate people.....Just because he could, was his reason I think....When do you decide it is time to defend your life and others around you. Before he opens up on people or after he does so?

[JoeBlowToo]

1. shoot first and ask questions later...

One more dumb fuck right winger eliminated.

[RC]

3. Actually two dumb fuck right winger eliminated.

They will haul the CC off for murder of whatever degree.

[ManiacJoe]

2. It depends on what you mean by "carrying".

If the gun is slung over his shoulder, then I will take notice of him, give him a bit more attention than everyone else gets, and continue about with my business.

If the rifle is in his hands, then there is reasonable presumption that he is up to no good. In that case I will call 911 to report the man, then leave the area. Confronting the man is the job of the police.

> When do you decide it is time to defend your life and others around you?

The phrase you are looking for is "ability, opportunity, jeopardy".
The JCP man fails the "jeopardy" test since he has not demonstrated by words or actions a desire to harm you, so legally you cannot shoot him under self-defense.

[pipoman]

4. A concealed carrier

should attempt to get away just like anyone else. The general idea is that cc is for last resort self defense, not crime fighting.

[flamin lib]

6. What about 'stand your ground' laws?

Should you stand your ground before or after he stands his ground?

[ManiacJoe]

10. Your question suggests you need to do some research.

SYG laws just say that you have no requirement to run away. Standard laws for self-defense still apply. Running away or staying and fighting is a tactical decision that needs to be made at the time of the event.

As the attacker, he has no "ground to stand". Cover, concealment, and returned fire are all tactical decisions based on the circumstances.

[pipoman]

13. Stand your ground

is designed to keep from re-victimizing victims.

[Hoyt]

26. Zimmerman comes to mind.

[truebluegreen]

42. Thank you, ALEC nt

[kestrel91316]

52. Victims - like Trayvon Martin???

Policy design FAIL.

[Bake]

15. Just because you CAN stand your ground doesn't mean you SHOULD do so.

I'd get the hell outta Dodge ...

Bake

[krispos42]

24. I think in this case...

(keeping in mind that, as the aggressor, he has no ground to stand, legally) if the rifle was in his hands and he was either using it or about to use it, in a busy mall I would have the right to shoot him even if I was not personally in danger, because I would be preventing him from harming others.


If it was just, say, him and I in a little store or wing of a department store and he decides to go for his rifle, then what I can legally do depends on the law.

If I can escape, I am legally required to do so if the state does not have SYG. For example, if I ran through one of those "employee only" doors that lead into the bowels of the mall. If I instead out-drew him and shot him, I could be tried for some sort of crime. Even if found not guilty, I'm plus-one on a traumatic experience and minus thousands of dollars for legal fees.

But if the state had SYG, then rather than trying to run, I could draw and shoot. Assuming I win the draw, the DA would be prevented from filing charges against me, and I'd also have civil immunity from him or his survivors.


Now, obviously, if him and I were in a little store and he grabs his rifle and I draw and shoot, I don't think I would go to prison even if I could have fled and the law required me to do so. The case can easily be made that at the time of the crisis, I was not aware of the path to safety, or I didn't think I could make it in time, or whatever. But that might well require a trial and an acquittal, which of course is time and money and stress.

[Hoyt]

27. You guys got it all figured out, except you really don't.

[krispos42]

55. awww

You're just disappointed because you didn't get the bloodthirsty answer your caricature of gun owners would give.

[libdem4life]

5. A comment I will never forget in the aftermath of the Gabby Gifford's Tucson shooting...

a legal concealed carrier was in the vicinity...heard the shots, but said he instantaneously determined not to unholster his weapon for two reasons: 1) he might be mistaken for the shooter and be shot himself, and 2) he might kill an innocent bystander, like himself, and be guilty of murder.

It left me, a non-gun owner, reflecting on why anyone would "carry" in that or most public circumstances.

(I get at home and hunting.)

[Bake]

16. He rightly decided not to draw the weapon

for the stated reasons.

But he might be somewhere else before he gets home, and NOT in a crowd scene, where he might need it.

That's one reason why one would/could carry.

People here seem to assume that all CCers are guns nuts just itching to shoot somebody. That's not true. I don't know a single CCer (and I know a lot of them) who would go out of his/her way to shoot someone, or who would shoot someone except as a last resort AFTER taking every other reasonably possible step to avoid it.

Bake

[libdem4life]

25. I don't think that at all, especially of people here. Just trying to understand. When I have to

imagine ... in reality ... the unimaginable ... taking a weapon into an elementary class room for defense, it's a huge paradigm shift. But then, I felt that way when airports seemed to turn into armed encampments. So we're all having to learn.

[Bake]

29. I didn't mean to imply you personally.

Sorry it sounded that way. Not what I meant.

But there are a number of posters here who like to throw around terms like "Rambo," "Delicate Flowers," for gun owners and use geeky Lord of the Rings references to "the Precious" for our guns.

I'm with you. I cannot imagine elementary school teachers (or any other teacher, for that matter) having to be armed! That's insanity.

You asked a reasonable question. I hope I gave a reasonable, if not exhaustive, answer.



Bake

[libdem4life]

30. Indeed...it's like the conversation we never wanted to have...but here it is.

[Ruby the Liberal]

28. Joe Zamudio.

I was totally blown away by his interview with Ed Schultz. Even bookmarked it. How that kid kept a level head in all of that chaos without having a military or LEO background just blows my mind. He is the exception, not the norm, IMO.

Here it is in case anyone missed it:

[Starboard Tack]

65. Fact is, as Bake says, most carriers are not gun nuts.

They are relatively normal individuals who, for one reason or another, feel unsafe around their fellow citizens. They are scared for their own personal safety. They are not vigilantes, like Zimmerman, in the main.
I don't get it, personally, because it is a sign of a failed society and every person who carries contributes to said failure. Quite a tragic state of affairs, when you think about it. A distorted view of a Constitutional right that leads directly to the failure of the society it purportedly protects. Such irony!

[libdem4life]

67. Reminds me of an event in the 70s in Barcelona, Spain. We were tourists, just arrived and checked

in our youth hostel, out sightseeing and buying souvenirs and skipping along not paying a lot of attention and as we rounded a "blind" corner, I kind of stumbled into a uniformed military-type officer patrolling on the sidewalk with a machine gun poised at about 45 degrees. What a shock. We kind of dodged each other, surprised and went on our way, but I'll never forget the instant but stark comparison of the two cultures in just that moment.

No judgment...it was their normal. Hope I don't live to see it here.

[EarthWindFire]

7. you

Only use your weapon when you or someone else's life is in danger. So you MUST wait for an imminent threat towards you or someone else.

[regjoe]

8. FFS

Somebody pointing a weapon at you probably has bad intentions, correct? Dial 911!
Holstered or secured weapon? Not a threat.

"When do you decide it is time to defend your life and others around you?"

Like the person taking the picture at JCPs had to do before that guy "opened up on people?"

[Zoeisright]

9. Well, what you forget

is that CCW gods have extrasensory perception and they know immediately who the bad guy is. And they always hit the target, even if it's moving with other people around. Plus, they have big muscles and extra large brains so they NEVER make a mistake.

[gateley]

11. Thank you to the gun owners who responded.

It's people like YOU that make me support a right to arms. Reasoned, rational, logical. I assume the majority of gun owners are of the same mind.

We get the pics and stories of the whacks -- and nothing will stop them.

I'm one of the ones who doesn't see a need for what we non-owners always refer to as "assault weapons" or high capacity magazines. But again, in the hands of people like you, it wouldn't be an issue.

What a mess. Don't know what, if anything, we can actually DO to make a difference yet protect your (ultimately "our&quot rights.

[Lurks Often]

21. Most gun owners are of the same mind,

it is extremely rare to meet one who thinks he is Rambo or John McClain.

[gateley]

23. That's my belief, too, which is why I don't like the "off with their heads" all or nothing

attitude, nor the broad swipes charging all gun owners as gun luuuuuuuuuuvers.

But as with everything, the actions of a few affect the many.

I fume every time I have to show my ID to get one box of Actifed because of an ingredient that's used in meth (or something).

And, as usual, the ones who SHOULD be punished aren't -- the rest of us are.

[bongbong]

12. An even better hypothetical question for the Delicate Flowers

Let's say FIVE different guys come into a mall, at slightly different times from different directions/entrances, all carrying AR-15s. They have no connection with each other, just happened in at about the same time.

Unless you Delicate Flowers are really the Rambos you imagine you are (a 0.00000000000001% possibility), you can't watch 'em all, and you can't gun them all down if they turn out to be Bad Guys (trademark of the NRA).

And the way things are going in this insane gun-nut country, that very scenario actually has a chance of happening.

So what do you Delicate Flowers do then?

[Bake]

17. Nice insult. Crap like that is why gun owners don't pay attention to you

or assume you're a gun grabber.

Delicate Flower? Check. Rambo? Check.

Here's where you're wrong. Dead wrong. Not a single CCer I know, and I know quite a few, thinks that he/she is Rambo. None of us -- NOT ONE -- is itching to shoot anybody.

Your comment is about as wrong as wrong can possibly be.

Bake

[bongbong]

19. Statistics!

> Your comment is about as wrong as wrong can possibly be.

I bet that statement is based upon your exhaustive study of Delicate Flowers, as you mentioned. How many millions did you study?

Did you study the Delicate Flower who put on social media that he was hoping somebody tried a "batman" since he was itching to try out his Precious?

[Bake]

22. I don't have to study any statistics to know bullshit when I see it.

Oh, and this time you used the "Precious!" How original!!

I seriously doubt the "DF" you referenced actually owns a gun. He's all talk, probably from Mommy's basement. Probably a lot like YOU.

Too bad we don't have a middle finger emoticon.

'Bye.

Bake

[cherokeeprogressive]

32. Leave.

Pretty simple answer to an even simpler question.

[baldguy]

36. Seems the Delicate Flowers can't stand to have their absurd positions scrutinized.

As always.

[Decoy of Fenris]

39. If that particular poster was offering any "Scrutiny", it would be met kindly.

However, he's never really offered any substance in regards to the gun debate, instead ridiculing and mocking and broad-brushing gun-owners with the worst passive-aggressiving he possibly can. If he were to offer a degree of dialogue or vocabulary above that of a grade-school bully, he would likely be met with more constructive debate. As it stands, are you surprised that his responses are either ignored or otherwise casually disregarded? When he comes up with something other than dry rhetoric or stale insults, I'm sure you'll see much more coherent responses to him. As it stands, do you have anything you'd like to offer in regards to the OP?

[baldguy]

40. Delicate flower being delicate.

[Decoy of Fenris]

43. Not at all. Just pointing out how and why you were wrong. n/t

[Lizzie Poppet]

61. Great example of how broken the jury system is.

Jackwagons can blunder into an otherwise civil and illuminating thread, throw insipid, grade-school-level insults around...and 4 out of 6 jurors think that's just fine.

So fucking broken...

[baldguy]

63. You poor thing.

[ManiacJoe]

44. Your malls must be smaller than normal.

> Let's say FIVE different guys come into a mall, at slightly different times
> from different directions/entrances, all carrying AR-15s.

Since they are in five separate places, the most I need to worry about is the one guy near me, if any are near me. Can you even see multiple entrances from any one place at your mall?

What do you suggest that your unarmed "flowers" do?

> and you can't gun them all down if they turn out to be Bad Guys

True, but no one is claiming they could. Nor is anyone claiming that to be a goal.

[Lizzie Poppet]

14. It would depend entirely on the situation.

If he's presenting no obvious, immediate threat (the weapon is slung on his back, for example), as another poster said, all I'd do is keep a bit more of an eye on him than I might otherwise bother with. If the weapon is in his hands, however, I'd find the best place to take cover quickly if I needed to and call 911. Again as others have pointed out, it's not my job to deal with something like that, save as a last resort. That's what the SWAT team, professional police negotiators, etc. are for.

The moment he actually fires changes things a fair bit...but it's still very situationally-dependent. The decision to open fire on him or not HAS to be made as rationally and coolly as humanly possible (and no one knows how well they'll be able to do that until they actually find themselves in such a situation). If you don't have a good, clear shot that has a high probability of hitting the target, that's almost certainly going to be a "no shoot" situation. You do the same as above: find cover and call the police. The CCW permit holder that encountered the Clackamas shooter elected not to fire...because the range was fairly long for his weapon and (more importantly), there were people running around behind the shooter. That was the right call. Bottom line: this isn't a situation for silly Rambo daydreams or unfounded overestimation of your abilities with your weapon.

As an aside, yes, I have put a fair bit of thought into this. Not because it's ever anything I want to happen (see above comment about silly Rambo daydreams), but because I believe it's a lot like actual range training time. Under the enormous stress of a real life-or-death situation, people tend to do what they've trained to do. If they haven't trained, that's probably what they'll do: nothing. They'll freeze...or have a panic reaction of some sort. Not good. I consider the process of making "shoot/no shoot" decisions to be pretty much the same thing: thinking these things through in advance gives you a better chance of making the right call if it ever actually happens. It's my opinion that people who aren't willing to think these things through and to spend some time at the range on a regular basis should elect not to avail themselves of the right to carry concealed in public. You shouldn't just "strap it on and wing it."

[Bake]

18. Excellent answer.

Thanks.



Bake

[wtmusic]

57. Insane.

Who wants a fucking world where they need to "keep an eye on" people who could ace them in the wink of an eye when they go to a goddamn shopping mall?

I have to watch him? My experience has to be dependent on his situation? This is the kind of bullshit that makes people want to just take them all away.

[Lizzie Poppet]

59. *shrug* I was just answering the OP's hypothetical.

It's not something that comes up a lot in my life (open carry is perfectly legal in Oregon, but here in Portland it's virtually never done). Out in rural areas, particularly out in the eastern part of the state, it's not nearly as unusual to see someone with an openly-carried handgun. Maybe a rifle in a rack in their truck. I never really worried about those people though - there's a certain ease in their body language, I suppose...a "business as usual" sort of thing that's very different from the unspoken signals someone sketchy sends.

Like I said in my previous response, I'd be keeping an eye on someone with an AR or AK strapped to his back in a mall here in the city. That behavior is far enough outside social norms to warrant watchfulness. Nothing illegal...but a lot of things that are legal aren't necessarily a great idea.

[Starboard Tack]

68. As usual, a thoughtful response from you.

If all CCW permit holders were like you, I doubt there would be many objections. Unfortunately, they are not all like you. Maybe most are, but that doesn't cut it when we're talking millions and more lining up daily.
Carrying a gun in public, whether concealed or open is a huge responsibility, and should be treated as such by those issuing the permits. A 3, 6 or 12 hour course is not enough. We need a national standard of training and vetting for those who want to carry in public.

[Lizzie Poppet]

69. Thanks...and those are very good suggestions.

I wish I could say that most CCW permit holders took the implicit responsibility very seriously and engaged in frequent practice, etc. Unfortunately, I can't say that. I'd like to see a considerably higher standard of qualification, myself. Perhaps even some range time... I'm not expecting a carry permit holder to be some sort of competition-level pistol shooter, but demonstrating proper safe gun handling and the ability to place rounds on-target at gunfight distances (which is pretty close...) doesn't seem like too much to ask.

The course I took when I got my permit wasn't about shooting technique and so forth, at all. It was primarily about a combination of safety and understanding Oregon state law about what does and does not constitute legal use of deadly force. I didn't give the former a lot of thought (I shoot on a weekly basis, and gun safety is pretty solidly inculcated in me), but I was impressed with how thorough the instructor was on the points about legality. He also made a big point about holding up his own permit card and pointing out "this is NOT a deputy sheriff's badge, people...remember that." I thought that emphasis on the fact that permit holders aren't some sort of quasi-LEOs was important.

It was a good course...but I'd still like to see actual qualification requirements. I realize that might not be a popular position with a lot of my fellow gun owners. I'm kinda used to that...being a liberal and all.

[Lurks Often]

20. You fail to consider the regional differences

What isn't a big deal in Utah, is likely to be a big deal, if not outright illegal in California or Connecticut.

Open carry of a long gun or handgun, while technically legal in CT, is rarely seen in public. Having said that, I'll say the same thing as everybody else: if the gun is slung from the shoulder and the person appears to be merely going about his/her business, I'll pay more attention to them. If he has the gun in his hands and is wearing a ski mask or doing anything else a reasonable person would consider alarming, I am calling the police and heading for the nearest exit in the opposite direction the person with the gun is going.

Someone who carries a gun is under NO LEGAL OBLIGATION to engage (open fire) on a person shooting other people.

Speaking for myself, if I ended up in a situation like the Clackamas mall shooting, I would have to consider a number of things: can I safely fire at the shooter without endangering someone behind him, am I endangering anybody near me if he fires back, do I have sufficient cover to stop his return fire, is there more then one shooter, even if I can safely fire at the shooter without endangering someone near/behind him, do I have a reasonable chance of hitting him, can I escape without being shot.

Is this an indiscriminate shooting by a mentally deranged person or a targeted crime, say against a Brink's guard with money coming from or going to a store?

Given all the different variables involved, it's hard to definitively say Yes, I would shoot or No, I would not shoot. Again, speaking for myself, using the Clackamas mall shooting as an example, everything would have to be just right before I would consider shooting unless I had no other choice.

[Duckhunter935]

31. pay more attention to him.

Carry weapon is the last resort. Leave the area and call 911 if he starts to do something other than just having weapon slung over his back. I do not favor going to jail if I had other choices than drawing a gun. Even drawing it and not firing will get you in serious legal trouble.

[Ruby the Liberal]

33. I do not own a weapon, but I can tell you one thing,

and that is if you walk into a financial institution/retail bank with a weapon displayed and you are not known and in known uniform (not military), every employee who has you in their line of sight just clicked the silent alarm at their desk/workstation without missing a beat. Its SOP in the financial industry, between disgruntled clients/customers and bank robberies.

Leave the precious in the car unless it is a requirement of your job description.

[Duckhunter935]

34. Do not normally carry but do have CCW

If I was carrying correctly you would never know. That's what concealed carry is.

[Ruby the Liberal]

37. Yep - why I said "with a weapon displayed"

ie - the scenario in the OP where someone is in public with a weapon displayed like that moron in Utah in the JCPenney.

[Duckhunter935]

38. well deep in red OK

It may go over without an issue. Depends on the financial institution, but we have open carry and it is not listed as a prohibited area for carry.

[raidert05]

45. This is

Very True actually, a lot of place here in the Virginia Beach Area don't even take notice about who's carrying what. I still enjoy the bank from the comfort of the drive thru though.

[Ruby the Liberal]

49. From what you have seen

and employees are highly trained not to be 'seen'.

[Ruby the Liberal]

48. You are welcome to try your luck.

Here in the Northeast, armored car companies and the police don't even send someone inside a financial institution/bank for a routine stop (scheduled cash pickup/delivery or LEO 'stop in and say hi' visits) until they have been introduced to staff by a known current employee.

Give it a try and let us know how that works out for ya. Sling a rifle over your back like the dude in Utah and visit your local Wells Fargo/Bank of America/JP Morgan Chase/etc to make a deposit and report back.

[Decoy of Fenris]

50. Not all the Northeast, evidently.

Here in New York, I've been alongside two men in hunting regalia, each with a shouldered rifle, at an Alliance bank. To my knowledge (I wasn't there long, I was just cashing a check), there was no altercation regarding them and the bank employees.

[Decoy of Fenris]

35. I don't CC, but I'll answer anyways.

"What do you do?"
Take notice, proceed with whatever I'm doing.


"Do you ignore it and consider it normal behavior?"
I wouldn't ignore it, but I wouldn't freak out over it. It's hardly normal behavior, but it's not unheard of.


"Do you approach the person and try to discern their intentions?"
No more than I would any other suspicious-looking stranger.


"Do you run for the hills? Do you open fire? Do you notify authorities? Do you attempt to confine the person?"
Aside from notifying the authorities (for a potential threat), why would anyone do any of the above, especially without cause? Which brings us to the next question...


"Would you consider the person a threat?"
Again, no more than any other garden-variety shifty-looking stranger. If anything, personally, I would consider that person less of a threat; potential danger is far more "threatening" than obvious danger. If I had to choose a higher threat, the guy with the AR or the scabbed-over hobo muttering in a box, I'd probably pick the bum due to potential threat level and an understanding of AR-guy's capabilities. When in a dangerous scenario and given options, correct and proper analysis of the situation will, presumably, always favor the clear and identified threat as opposed to a potential one; the mind favors the known over the unknown.


"When do you decide it is time to defend your life and others around you. Before he opens up on people or after he does so?"
If possible, as stated further upthread, "Neither." However, if the issue is pressed to the point of "My life OR the life of the attacker", I would like the option, the choice, to defend myself. Otherwise, involvement is an exercise in escalation. Many of the recent shootings (Giffords, the mall shooting that slips my memory) had cases of CC who chose to avoid getting involved. They -could- have attempted to stop the attacker, but those CCWers had the option to avoid escalation and preserve both their own lives and the lives of others around them. Otherwise, personally, it is no more my duty to protect random strangers by risking personal injury than it is the duty of the random strangers to protect me. -IF- I were to CC (I dislike handguns in general), I would do so to protect the lives of my family/myself, as a last line of defense only.

[raidert05]

41. Certain things have to meet up

Does he meet the Threat Triangle in my all of my combat ,reaction force, force protection training in the Navy its always been Opportunity, Capability, Intent. Here is a good picture that breaks it down, replace jeopardy with Intent and its the same thing.

"

There are certain "tripwires" that have to be meet before one can pull a gun and shoot someone, if you can't reasonable meet all three in your head then you can't claim self-defense or defense of others, you have to positively 100% be able to justifiable meet all three sides or you are wrong. The guy in JCPenny's did not meet 1 of the sides all together and lost 1 after letting his presence be known.

Ability: He had firearms

Opportunity: He had the opportunity to open fire as soon as he entered the building, once people became aware of him lost the opportunity because people were well within reasonable distance to stop him before he drew a weapon.

Intent: He didn't come in guns a blazing, He was not in positive control of the rifle with it being slung over his back (although that is not the proper way to carry any rifle two words "Muzzle Discipline" it either points straight up or straight down none of that half cocked sideways rambo bullshit) and his pistol was holstered, he wasn't being aggressive towards anyone as far as the stories and the report on the incident went.

I hope this better explains the process, if you can't 100% percent justify all three sides your best bet is to just lay low and keep an eye on them and go on about your business.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

46. I regularly carry when back in the States - I'll answer...

You are in a large shopping mall and see someone enter carrying an AR-15 or similar weapon.

What do you do? From a distance I would probably examine him, his behaviour, mannerisms and disposition. Is he unkemt/disheveled, talking to himself, behaving erratically, does he show any sings of drug use, is he calm, etc... You can often tell if somethings wrong or someone is upset. I wouldn't go out of my way to get closer, I would just take notice from a distance and try to determine if they guy is acting funny or just being an idiot. If he's acting (otherwise) normal I'd probably just go about shopping and try to avoid him and keep a mental note of exits and exit strategy in the back of my mind. Now If it's totally obvious he's completely benign just making a demonstration, I'd probably go up and strike up a conversation.

What if he looks unstable? I'd calmly start walking to the nearest exit, I'd call the police and describe the situation and what exatcly in my opinion makes appear to be an imminent threat (aside from the weapon he's displaying). I would try to put as much distance between himself and me as possible without drawing attention. I would absolutely not escalate the situation or reveal/draw my own handgun - no legal right exists for me to do so. Not only that, but if someone has a rifle I would be woefully undergunned to start any sort of shit.

So what if there is an active shooter in JCPenny or the guy starts shooting? I need to grab everyone I can around me and GTFO ASAP. Call the cops from a safe location. The only reason my gun leaves it's holster, let alone gets fired, is if the shooter directly confronts me. It's a last resort in 99% of situations. Don't worry about calling the cops, don't look to go see who is shooting where or I can take him out, don't run around looking for a fight, don't try to find the guy to ask him if he is aware the mall is a "gun free zone", don't ask the guy how big his penis is... just grab people around you and urge them to follow you to safety. Maybe grab a handful of Coach purses, Armani jackets, or Movado timepieces on the way out ( ).

[raidert05]

47. yes!!

Maybe grab a handful of Coach purses, Armani jackets, or Movado timepieces on the way out ().

Maybe a nice North Face Jacket?

[erinlough]

51. where I live people can get a conceal and carry permit just by applying

I leave anywhere I am when I see a weapon. I am more frightened by these people then I am of criminals. I leave even quicker if the person is dressed in camouflage with a weapon. I am careful not to say anything to them to start anything because I think they would shoot. I feel like a prisoner in this state with all the guns that are around and I will do anything I can to bring us back to more sensible gun control.

I have spoken to other people who feel like I do, but I don't expect everyone to agree. I grew up with guns, but things now are crazy in my opinion.

[kestrel91316]

53. I think we all know the decision depends solely on what color the guy

with the rifle is.

[rightsideout]

54. I'd pull the Fire Alarm

Now this is only if the AR-15 guy was holding the rifle like he was going to do something with it.

But, this would take care of alot of issues at once.

1) People will start evacuating the Mall
2) The authorities would immediately respond to the alarm
3) The AR-15 whacko would be standing there confused as people rush around him because the Fire Alarm would throw off his game. He's no longer in control. He'd be like, "WTF?" That delay would save some lives.
4) The CCW Hero would be distracted from brandishing his firearm. He's no longer in control either (possibly saving lives as well)

Since both the AR-15 guy and the CCW Hero are control freaks, the alarm would interrupt what they perceive is their own control of the situations. That interruption of their paranoid worlds would hopefully cause them to freeze to the point where it would provide people a chance to evacuate or run for cover.

The whole idea is to keep both these gun wielding whackos from hurting anybody but themselves.

[sarisataka]

56. Hypothetically...

What do you do?- observe his actions while going about my business

Do you ignore it and consider it normal behavior? No, it is unusual so is worthy of notice, but in and of itself, not immediately threatening

Do you approach the person and try to discern their intentions?- Nope, the person's actions will speak for him

Do you run for the hills?- baring any threatening act, as in readying to fire, no need

Do you open fire?- why would I do that?

Do you notify authorities?- if his actions appear threatening or not normal if the AR was not present

Do you attempt to confine the person?- nope, above my pay grade

Would you consider the person a threat?- not without further cause to consider him dangerous

Just curious because of that nut that entered JC Pennys with an AR-15 just to intimidate people.....Just because he could, was his reason I think....When do you decide it is time to defend your life and others around you. Before he opens up on people or after he does so?

Just because a person can do something does not mean they should do it.
Self defense can only take place in the immediate threat of harm; a person carrying a weapon has not yet met that threshold.

[wtmusic]

58. By the time you thought twice about him you'd be dead. nt

[sarisataka]

60. If the person is coming in

to shoot the first person he sees and I am that person, likely I am dead before I can react. Of course he may miss then I am still alive and can counter.
In any other situation I can begin to react which gives me a chance.

[wtmusic]

64. You have a much better chance if he doesn't have the gun to start with.

A number of ways to accomplish that.

[sarisataka]

66. That would make the point moot

If the person has no gun. But the hypothetical situation is someone walks into a mall carrying a gun.
There is no law, policy or action that can prevent this situation from occurring. It could be made illegal, which would change the dynamic, but it cannot be stopped.

[wtmusic]

70. Making it illegal would make it much rarer.

A potential issue is more dangerous than a non-issue every time.

[Berserker]

62. Would not

Shake my shit up any. I carry concealed but I am not a cop. If he would try to use the weapon on myself or other innocent people that would be a different matter. What would you do in that situation?
You either run or piss down your leg waiting for someone to protect you.