About the Aurora Theater, the Sikh Temple and the FRC shootings.

Aurora Theater: 12 dead, 58 injured.

Sikh Temple: 6 dead, 4 injured.

Family Research Council: No deaths, one injured.

Three similar shooting incidents but only one had a major body count. Why? In both the Sikh temple and the FRC, the shooter faced a counter attack that disrupted his plans. Satwant Singh Kaleka attacked Wade Michael Page with a knife and wounded him enough to send him back outside where police got a chance to shoot him. Floyd Lee Corkins II entered the Family Research Council and shot Security Officer Leo Johnson in the arm who jumped on him, disarmed him and held them for authorities.

At the Aurora Shooting, nobody attacked James Holmes who shot till he got tired or bored and waited for the cops to arrive and arrest him.

By  now it is clear that active shooters/ mass shooters/ whatever terminology are not the bravest or smartest and actually run on the coward side of the human race. Not only on these two cases but as shown in previous events such as the New Life Church, Appalachian School of Law, Trolley Square Mall, etc has shows that it takes one dedicated individual to stop what could have been a wholesale massacre, preferably armed.

But sure as hell you don’t solve anything hiding under a desk.

15 Replies to “About the Aurora Theater, the Sikh Temple and the FRC shootings.”

  1. I wish I could find the report I found a while ago again. I actually wish I had saved it because it went through an analyzed mass shootings and one of the big items was the predominately when faced with resistance, especially armed resistance the attacker would commit suicide or surrender.




    0



    0
  2. I’ve been reading for a while here and I’ve honestly lost track of when it is that you advocate “getting involved” and when you think it’s best to avoid conflict. You seem to support action in certain cases but then you’re critical of confronting a threat in others. There’s no rhyme or reason to your logic that I can figure out.

    Help me out.




    0



    0
    1. OK Brad, it is really easy: There is no “A+B+C = Success!” formula. In real life, the SHTF formula is something along the lines of A+B+Ξξ+Ξξ+Ξξ+ = ∞ (Ξξ is a random variable)
      Some stuff however is obvious: If you are trapped, fight back as lethal and as determined as you can. If escape is possible, run. If confrontation is avoidable, avoid it. If you feel the need to be a hero, let me know so I don’t be there. If you are unarmed, your chances of survival are reduced drastically.
      Life is a chaos structure always on the verge of collapsing. When it does, it is how you avoid the falling pieces what will decide if you survive or die.

      If you need somebody that promises you 100% safety, go to the other side with CSGV & Company. Over here we don’t sell Unicorns.




      0



      0
      1. Your explanation sounds good but even the “obvious” stuff seems to be a bit, well, less obvious.

        “If escape is possible, run.”

        In the Sikh temple shooting, the members could have easily found a back or side door to run to and get out of the way, but instead someone elected not to and stepped forward to risk his life and thwart the attack. He is a “hero” by any definition of the word.

        Pretty much the same thing in the Aurora shooting. Many of the victims had your suggestion in mind as they bolted for the doors and were shot by the gunman. They were, in fact, “trying to avoid confrontation” when they lost their lives. Again, not so obvious.

        I don’t see there being any kind of similarity that the FRC shooting has with the other two. That shooting was directed at one person who was doing his job and who happened to stand between shooter and where he wanted to go. I guess you could say that the guard had the option of running or avoiding the confrontation, but that’s stretching it.

        I do agree with your statement that there are a lot of random variables, but I think your “obvious stuff” is not so much.

        Also, sometimes living to see and experience another day is a lot more important than “solving” anything. Based upon your past writings, I think you would agree.




        0



        0
        1. someone elected not to and stepped forward to risk his life and thwart the attack. He is a “hero” by any definition of the word.

          He became a hero (no quote marks), but I am damn sure he did not want to be one. As I said, if somebody wants to be one, I don’t wanna be close to him. Wannabe Heroes get people unnecessary killed.

          Pretty much the same thing in the Aurora shooting. Many of the victims had your suggestion in mind as they bolted for the doors and were shot by the gunman. They were, in fact, “trying to avoid confrontation” when they lost their lives. Again, not so obvious.

          I think you have the terms mixed up. If escape is possible, run. is not the same as If confrontation is avoidable, avoid it. In the first one a possible deadly action is already occurring, on the second one the possible deadly action has not occurred yet. If the bullets are flying, the confrontation/action is already happening. And I also said “if escape is possible” If not, you better have other options available.

          I don’t see there being any kind of similarity that the FRC shooting has with the other two. That shooting was directed at one person who was doing his job and who happened to stand between shooter and where he wanted to go.

          OK… if that is what you think.

          Nobody is forcing you to do as I say. You can take the advice or ignore it and share your personal strategies…or not share them. It is the same to me.




          0



          0
  3. Brad-

    I cannot speak for Miguel, but typically the conversation requires specificity as to who is under threat of imminent great bodily harm or death:

    1. you,
    2. someone you care about,
    3. total strangers

    In scenario #1, the answer is obvious. Likewise for scenario #2 (most of the time).

    As for scenario #3, the answer is not so simple. There are practical and legal risks to getting involved which result in moral ambiguity, not the least of which is stumbling upon a scene of violence in medias res and being mistaken as to who the good and bad guys are. And then there is flight 93…did the passengers fight for themselves, innocents on the ground, or both?

    I am confident Miguel’s posts will not appear illogical or inconsistent against this analytical backdrop. And I don’t think he is telling anybody what they should do, other than that we should not disarm those who are willing to jump into harm’s way to defend themselves or others.




    0



    0
    1. If I could add; if I am prevented from carrying a firearm because of the illogical and ineffective policy of a “gun free zone” at an establishment than my options are severely limited. I may not be able to do much for protecting 1, 2 or 3 above, per Randon Loeb. That’s very sad.

      I think the new approach that should be used is to sue the hell out of any place that posts those signs and does not provide full security. If they pro-actively deprive me of the best tools for self-protection and then fail to provide any protection, then they have to be culpable.




      0



      0
        1. You’re right. I am definitely not a lawyer, but my sense of assigning responsibility kicks in when I see those silly signs. It really is a divorce from reality, if one thinks they are going to stop a criminal killer with a cute sign.




          0



          0
  4. as Miguel said, there’s not sure formula for success in life and when an armed nut job walks into a crowded place and wants to make a statement. you have to add up the risk/benefit equation for yourself and pretty darn quickly. part of this is knowing as many of the variables as possible before making your (often split second) decision. one important variable that is little known is that “active shooters”, as they’re known to LE, always have a plan. it may not be a good plan and it almost never includes a plan of how to get away after they’ve made their statement, but they have one and it involves killing as many people as they can as quickly as they can. often they have lists of people they are specifically targeting, as in workplace shooters, or like the temple shooter he just didn’t like folks with beards. looking at the data from all active shooters since the clock tower shooting in Austin the one constant in all these incidents is that when the shooter’s plan is disrupted the fatalities and injuries drop significantly. these people never have a backup plan so when their Plan A falls apart so do they. how does one disrupt the plan? any way one can! the security guard made contact with the FRC shooter, and though he took a bullet in the arm, he stopped the incident before it could really get rolling. the sikh in the temple attacked with a knife, and sadly was killed, but he disrupted the shooter’s plan so that he went outside and was killed by police.

    only you can decide how you will react to such an event and far be it from me to tell you how you should. i know how i will react. is it safe? will i come through such an encounter unscathed? no one knows but that’s ok with me. the evidence is overwhelming: it is much “safer” to end the shooting spree quickly by killing or wounding the shooter or cornering them in an area that police can get to them. any resistance is better than no resistance. it’s certainly better than cowering with a person with a plan caually shoots you in the back of the head.

    keep calm. remain cool. carry your guns concealed. when the smoke settles we can all sit down and talk about it.




    0



    0
  5. Very well done Critter! EWWW RAHHHH!

    Everybody’s reaction and response to a “situation” will most likely be different. Typically our society seems to not accept the fact that average citizens are capable of and should learn proper & lawful methods of defending themselves. I feel strongly that a person’s response will be based on their confidence level, at that given moment. This is why it is of paramount importance that people train and develop practical, useable skill sets, that fill their defensive toolbox so if & when that” time” ever arises, they can truly be prepared. People, having a gun and a permit means little in all of this. Having a proper mindset and a workable skill set is much more important than most realize. I am NOT suggesting that people train to become killers,,,, NO! We (should) learn and train to lawfully defend ourselves. We (should) learn valuable techniques and refine those techniques by practicing repetitions until those techniques evolve into a skill set. Panic is the absence of training.
    I like what Sun Tzu said years ago: The art of war teaches us to rely not on the likelihood of the enemy’s not coming, but on our own readiness to receive him; not on the chance of his not attacking, but rather on the fact that we have made our position unassailable.




    0



    0

Feel free to express your opinions. Trolling, overly cussing and Internet Commandos will not be tolerated .