Shootings In Las Vegas

[Meece 1,957]

Yeah probably 30 years. It all depends on the situation. I know of some pubs that have are Arrangements with shoots for after shoot dinners and guns are taken Into the pub and put in a corner ( in slips ) ( can't leave them out unsecured in vehicles  ) with no problems. but generally you Can't wander around with a shotgun over your forearm like years ago because of having a firearm in a public place. The change has been a mixture of media entertainment and computers  and video games and the events like Hungerford, Dunblane, Derek Bird, ralph moat and  various terrorist events. Years ago there was more community and people knew other neighbours.  There weren't  drugs, weirdos, Pedos  ect ( well not on the surface). Now everyone comes home and shuts their door and gets their head in front of a computer. Like me now. All the village pubs are gone. I don't know people who live over the road and as such if they were wandering around with guns would I  query their motives. Yes I would, especially if the kids were playing out there. Hungerford and Especially Dunblane were the watersheds and derek bird driving around randomly shooting anyone. A woman walking with her shopping and a bloke fitting a farm gate. Pull up next to them, barrel out of window and lights out. Brutal.  Similar to los Angeles.  No rhyme nor reason.

Ps.  also in recent times this has spread to carrying knives even small pocket knives.  Then more recently random  acid attacks.  None of these things are dangerous in themselves its the person behind it.

[ChrisJones 7,973]

3 minutes ago, Meece said:

None of these things are dangerous in themselves its the person behind it.

Fully agree.

Where I currently reside it's perfectly legal to open carry and the state issues a concealed carry permit that's recognised in 33 states. Of course, the proximity of firearms gives the US much higher numbers in firearms-related deaths and injuries but gun owning law abiding people aren't and have never been a threat to society much the same as the UK.

Yes, there are nutters in the world. Yes having the capacity to immobilize many targets extremely quickly is a problem that requires a workable solution but where bad people want to do bad things to good people they'll use the best method they can at their disposal.

The easy political solution, at least on paper, is to legislate against the device used. It creates the illusion that something is being done. This never seems able to tackle the mind and body that goes behind the devious act in the first place and the events leading up to the event can be hard to understand, or in the Vegas shooting case, impossible.

The first thing under scrutiny after a mass shooting is the gun. Agreed that it's devastating and can inflict massive casualties extremely quickly but in atrocities committed in Europe, very recently using vehicles, the immediate attention is drawn to the perpetrator as the usefulness of a vehicle as a tool hasn't had a propaganda campaign that has challenged it's extremely useful positives. Restricting the usefulness of vehicles to combat mass casualties is a no starter because it's easier in this case at least to demonize the perpetrator behind the wheel.

That's the debate that should be had and one that is rarely contested when political point scoring is concerned. The propaganda against firearms ownership has been decades in the running and we now have a situation in the US where a sizeable chunk of the population find them repulsive and archaic. In the UK it's more of a majority I would assume. When Paddock opened fire in Las Vegas, killing 58, the immediate response was his ability to purchase firearms. Yet in Norway when Ander Breivek killed 77 the immediate response was his mental state and his political beliefs. Kneejerk law changes don't really seem to have worked and yet there are still people that want to inflict mass casualties. How do you tackle that?

[ChrisJones 7,973]

Slight tangent but this was reported in our local news two days ago.

A woman working in Starbucks in Salt Lake City, Utah, was attacked by a man who beat her with his fists. A 60-year-old concealed carry permit holder shot the perpetrator in the chest ending the assault.

The article speculates that the 60-year-old may face criminal charges but I can contest that the Utah penal code covers such uses of force for CCW holders.

It raises a repeated question for the panel. Would anyone disagree with this kind of intervention?

[Meece 1,957]

As you state a gun is an easy powerful tool but the problem is that and like lightening or water it finds the easiest route to ground zero. Here because the gun and ammunition is so controlled the gang youts attack each other with knives. Or more recently with acid. Knife sales have been controlled and possestion out of the home are now an offence. A lot of things such as drain cleaner, and stuff like rat poison are now only sold to certain people or trade account holders to restrict dangerous substances to a traceable source. None of this will stop those with intent. Terrorists have used vehicles to mow down peddestrians and then attack with knives.  If someone really means business then they make a truck bomb such as the one in Oklahoma city. I wonder what happens in the heads to these rogues that kill indiscriminately. The problem is that  ot ma ycof them survive to be analysed.  Most of them either shoot themselves or get shot. Theres a thin line betwen shooting a deer or game and shooting people such as soldiers in war.

[Meece 1,957]

14 minutes ago, ChrisJones said:

Slight tangent but this was reported in our local news two days ago.

A woman working in Starbucks in Salt Lake City, Utah, was attacked by a man who beat her with his fists. A 60-year-old concealed carry permit holder shot the perpetrator in the chest ending the assault.

The article speculates that the 60-year-old may face criminal charges but I can contest that the Utah penal code covers such uses of force for CCW holders.

It raises a repeated question for the panel. Would anyone disagree with this kind of intervention?

The link doesnt work it just shows the word forbidden ! .?  No messing about there. At least the old boy won't get clobbered by  medical bills if he killed the guy. If he didn't then shoot him again to resolve the risk and aggression. Why did the bloke hit the woman. .? I think that it was only yesterday that European countries have trodden down on attacks on women. I'll sè if I  can find a link.

Link..... https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/oct/04/man-caught-on-cctv-punching-woman-outside-paris-cafe-jailed-fines-sexual-harassment-france-streets

Edited October 6, 2018 by Meece

[ChrisJones 7,973]

6 minutes ago, Meece said:

As you state a gun is an easy powerful tool but the problem is that and like lightening or water it finds the easiest route to ground zero.

Agreed but it hints at the assumption that they'll only be used for bad things. Same with knives. Same with drain cleaner, etc. The default opinion is that gun owners should be viewed with disdain and suspicion. This is how decades of peacetime and propaganda have played out along with the narrative that only those in authority should have them despite workable demonstrations that they're not there when they're needed and in the event of the Parkland shooting they actively avoided confronting the shooter allowing him to kill more people.

11 minutes ago, Meece said:

I wonder what happens in the heads to these rogues that kill indiscriminately.

That's where I'm at. They will find a way to make their point as violently as possible no matter how many laws forbidding it are on the books. It's easy to sit there and look at religious and political ideology as motivators but I've read a ton of sh*te over the years and I've never felt the inclination to commit a crime nevermind to use an ideology as an excuse to attempt one.

10 minutes ago, Meece said:

The link doesnt work it just shows the word forbidden ! .?  No messing about there. At least the old boy won't get clobbered by  medical bills if he killed the guy. If he didn't then shoot him again to resolve the risk and aggression. Why did the bloke hit the woman. .? I think that it was only yesterday that European countries have trodden down on attacks on women. I'll sè if I  can find a link.

It works fine from here but here is the long version if you feel inclined to cut and paste it into the browser.

https://www.ksl.com/article/46400745/i-dont-want-to-die-this-way-starbucks-clerk-relives-attack-after-customer-shoots-assailant-police-say

The attack occurred on October the 4th and legal CCW holder intervened mid-crime to stop the threat. The article alludes to the fact that they never even suspected the customer had it in him which is the whole ethos behind concealed carry in the first place. These are the people that make up the majority of firearms owners in the US and it again demonstrates that when seconds count the police are only minutes away.

[ChrisJones 7,973]

16 minutes ago, Meece said:

Link..... https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/oct/04/man-caught-on-cctv-punching-woman-outside-paris-cafe-jailed-fines-sexual-harassment-france-streets

Thanks for that.

Personally, I wouldn't have had an issue if she'd shot him to stop the threat but I have what's commonly referred to as a cognitive bias.

[Meece 1,957]

10 minutes ago, ChrisJones said:

Agreed but it hints at the assumption that they'll only be used for bad things. Same with knives. Same with drain cleaner, etc. The default opinion is that gun owners should be viewed with disdain and suspicion. This is how decades of peacetime and propaganda have played out along with the narrative that only those in authority should have them despite workable demonstrations that they're not there when they're needed and in the event of the Parkland shooting they actively avoided confronting the shooter allowing him to kill more people.

That's where I'm at. They will find a way to make their point as violently as possible no matter how many laws forbidding it are on the books. It's easy to sit there and look at religious and political ideology as motivators but I've read a ton of sh*te over the years and I've never felt the inclination to commit a crime nevermind to use an ideology as an excuse to attempt one.

It works fine from here but here is the long version if you feel inclined to cut and paste it into the browser.

https://www.ksl.com/article/46400745/i-dont-want-to-die-this-way-starbucks-clerk-relives-attack-after-customer-shoots-assailant-police-say

The attack occurred on October the 4th and legal CCW holder intervened mid-crime to stop the threat. The article alludes to the fact that they never even suspected the customer had it in him which is the whole ethos behind concealed carry in the first place. These are the people that make up the majority of firearms owners in the US and it again demonstrates that when seconds count the police are only minutes away.

They.  ?  The Guberment don't want us to use that link either. Or it drowned on route.  Just comes up with the word forbidden. On my pad.

[ChrisJones 7,973]

7 minutes ago, Meece said:

They.  ?  The Guberment don't want us to use that link either. Or it drowned on route.  Just comes up with the word forbidden. On my pad.

Quote

MILLCREEK — Shelby Hamilton’s first thought as she lay bruised and bleeding on the ground of a Millcreek Starbucks was that she didn’t want to die this way. It would be a painful way to go.

It all began while Hamilton was working an early morning shift at the coffee shop near 3900 South and 900 East Thursday morning. Hamilton was standing behind the counter when a “haggard-looking” man entered, she said.

Instead of coming to the register to order, the man came behind the counter and asked Hamilton if she knew who he was. When she replied that she didn’t, he became angry and began beating her with his fists, she said.

“It was all just kind of random. I didn’t really know him. … He just came in the door and hit me in the back of the head from behind,” Hamilton told KSL.com.

She backed up and tried to put distance between herself and the man, but once she reached the end of the counter, she was trapped — and he continued hitting her. Hamilton’s co-workers, however, remained frozen, unsure what to do, she said.

“I started to think why no one was helping me, ‘cause he was only hitting me, and I felt kind of angry for a moment,” she said.

Before Hamilton had much time to ponder the question, however, the man picked up a metal supply basket and hit her on the side of the head. Hamilton crumpled, and the man continued kicking her in the back. The only thought left in her mind: "I don't want to die this way."

As soon as she fell to the ground, however, her co-workers ran out the door and began screaming for help. The next thing Hamilton knew, the man had stopped beating her and gone back around the counter.

Soon after, she heard a gunshot.

“The first thought in my head was that this had turned into a shooting,” she said. “My second thought was … he just shot my friends, and my third thought was … he’s going to come back here and shoot me.”

Hamilton said she crawled under the counter to hide from the would-be shooter, but it was the police that found her soon after. It was then she overheard on one of the officers’ radios that her attacker had been shot by a customer.

“My honest thought? I just hoped that he was dead,” she said.

Unified Police Lt. Ken Hansen confirmed later that the attacker was shot by a man in his late 60s who saw what was happening while visiting the shop for his morning coffee. The customer drew the man’s attention, and the attacker began to approach him.

As he came closer, the customer pulled out a gun and shot the attacker once in the chest, Hansen said. The man then stumbled out of the store.

Police arrived shortly after and used a Taser to take Benjamin Overall, 37, into custody. They then realized that Overall had been shot and summoned medical help for both Hamilton and Overall, Hansen said. Police believe Overall may have mental health issues, Hansen added.

Overall was transported to a hospital in serious condition — though he has since been upgraded to satisfactory. Hamilton was transported in fair condition, though she’s since been released — albeit with a black eye, swollen face, cuts and bruises covering her hands and back.

Hamilton is grateful, however, that she’s alive. And especially grateful for the man with a gun who she said is a frequent customer.

“I know his drink," she said. "He comes in every morning and gets a large, blonde coffee in his personal cup. He’s always been very sweet. He’s always been very patient.”

Hamilton was initially surprised, however, when she heard he had shot the attacker.

“I never would have expected that from him," she said. "He just seemed like a very meek guy. So I was surprised, but also very grateful. I was very grateful that he was there. And I was glad it was somebody we see regularly so that hopefully, in the future, I can thank him.”

The customer has a concealed carry permit, Hansen said, and, though he doesn’t know for sure if the customer will face charges, he believes the shooting can be interpreted as self-defense. The customer is being “very cooperative” with police, Hansen added.

“We are thankful all partners (employees) and customers are safe after going through such a terrifying experience," Starbucks said in an emailed statement. "Our focus is on supporting our partners at this time. We are grateful local authorities were there to help and would direct any further questions their way.”

In 2013, Starbucks made a request that customers not bring firearms into its stores or outdoor eating areas, but the company specified that it was a request and not an outright ban.

As for Hamilton, she’s just happy someone was there.

“I’m just really grateful to be alive, and I’m thankful for everyone who was there to help me,” she said.

Contributing: Derek Petersen, KSL TV and Peter Karabats, KSL Newsradio

3

 

[Meece 1,957]

Thanks for sending that through. No idea why the link didnt work.  The customer should have shot him again. Saved a load of money and other problems. Perhaps he will get a bigger gun or some shooting practice. Still I have heard that nutters and drugos take a lot more lead.. The money and time spent on the 10mm after the 1986 FBI Miami shootout and it wasn't right and then moved to the sw40.  It's strange that somebody doesn't resurrect the old 455 Wembley round which was developed in the late 1800s. A big slow soft lead bullet. Modified to the smaller 38/200. In use up to the 70s.  in that shootout 145 shots were fired in about 5 minutes.