NPR story on a good guy with a gun and the aftermath

[MillCreek]

http://www.npr.org/2013/01/29/170456129/armed-good-guys-and-the-realities-of-facing-a-gunman?ft=1&f=1001

I remember this story very well, since it occurred in my area.  There was lots of debate on the local boards about how Mr. McKown could have handled the situation differently. 

[AZRedhawk44]

http://www.npr.org/2013/01/29/170456129/armed-good-guys-and-the-realities-of-facing-a-gunman?ft=1&f=1001

I remember this story very well, since it occurred in my area.  There was lots of debate on the local boards about how Mr. McKown could have handled the situation differently. 

I remember this too.  I used to visit that mall when I was in college.

I think McKown is the best authority for the "is it worth it?" question. 

[Jamisjockey]

I remember this too.  I used to visit that mall when I was in college.

I think McKown is the best authority for the "is it worth it?" question. 

Not only that, but knowing what to do, when to do it, and how to do it. 

[Devonai]

I can certainly understand hesitation to prevent fratricide.  If you're not sure who the shooter is then you might draw down on a fellow armed citizen or a plainclothes/off-duty cop.  If McKown was positive the other guy was the assailant, he should have either lit him up instantly or at least kept his mouth shut until he could bring his weapon to bear.

[AJ Dual]

I can certainly understand hesitation to prevent fratricide.  If you're not sure who the shooter is then you might draw down on a fellow armed citizen or a plainclothes/off-duty cop.  If McKown was positive the other guy was the assailant, he should have either lit him up instantly or at least kept his mouth shut until he could bring his weapon to bear.

This.

I'm not giving any verbal warnings in any similar situations either. I will shoot or I won't.

Verbal warnings are for people who at least appear to be unarmed, but are still engaging in behavior that's escalating to be worthy of lethal force anyway.

[Perd Hapley]

He should have shot him in the leg.

[zahc]

Based on the article, I didn't conclude that he was giving a verbal warning nor that he was worried about mis-identification.

According to his description, he was in the process of putting his gun away when the shooter appeared. Then, rather than make sudden movement to withdraw his gun and try to get on target faster than the shooter, which we can imagine might have been very unlikely, he issued a verbal command as an attempt at distraction or simply out of surprise. This is a regular old 'pants down' moment. The shooter had the drop on him, period. If there's a lesson, it's not to put your gun away until you are really sure the situation is safe.

[MechAg94]

Maybe he would have done better to look straight up and say "What's that?".  Addressing the shooter's gun and crime directly was not sufficient distraction. 

[Tallpine]

Maybe he would have done better to look straight up and say "What's that?".  Addressing the shooter's gun and crime directly was not sufficient distraction. 

And then switch the wine glasses 

[Hawkmoon]

At a time like that, he who fights fair loses. I don't think there's any valid moral code that requires giving a bad guy an invitation to shoot you before you shoot him.

[Blakenzy]

Based on the article, I didn't conclude that he was giving a verbal warning nor that he was worried about mis-identification.

According to his description, he was in the process of putting his gun away when the shooter appeared. Then, rather than make sudden movement to withdraw his gun and try to get on target faster than the shooter, which we can imagine might have been very unlikely, he issued a verbal command as an attempt at distraction or simply out of surprise. This is a regular old 'pants down' moment. The shooter had the drop on him, period. If there's a lesson, it's not to put your gun away until you are really sure the situation is safe.

This^^. Specially the last sentence.

[Perd Hapley]

If there's a lesson, it's not to put your gun away until you are really sure the situation is safe.

I figured he was afraid of some cop (or another armed citizen) coming up behind/beside him, assuming he was the shooter, and start blasting.


Would I be the only who's annoyed that NPR decided to focus on a case of defensive gun use that went horribly, terribly wrong?

[Ben]

Would I be the only who's annoyed that NPR decided to focus on a case of defensive gun use that went horribly, terribly wrong?

No.

My boss is a big NPR fan and in this last year has gotten into guns in what I can only describe as "the liberal way". He spent 15 minutes today discussing this story with me (or more precisely lecturing me) about how this showed that while there is a case for using a gun for defending yourself in your home, this clearly shows that carrying weapons in public should be reserved for the police. He said the defensive pistol instructors that were cited saying that the CCW holder should have not spoken and just shot the bad guy were simply "wannabes" that were armchair quarterbacking with no real experience like law enforcement has.

Sadly, the general NPR audience feels the same as him. Actually, the general NPR audience would say that even defensive gun use in the home is a bad idea.

Why didn't NPR focus on the Oregon mall? Will they be doing a story on the mother that defended herself and her children in her home (I forget where now) from an intruder?

[Perd Hapley]

Our tax dollars at work.

[Hawkmoon]

According to his description, he was in the process of putting his gun away when the shooter appeared. Then, rather than make sudden movement to withdraw his gun and try to get on target faster than the shooter, which we can imagine might have been very unlikely, he issued a verbal command as an attempt at distraction or simply out of surprise. This is a regular old 'pants down' moment. The shooter had the drop on him, period. If there's a lesson, it's not to put your gun away until you are really sure the situation is safe.

Ifthere's a lesson in this, it's probably this: "When it's time to talk ... talk. When it's time to shoot ... shoot." I didn't see in the article that the shooter "had the drop on him," just that the shooter suddenly appeared in front of him. If he had time to say "You need to put your gun down," he had time to draw his own gun and fire several shots.

It's a known fact that action beats reaction. Only the protagonist in the story knows why he chose to talk instead of shoot, but it was obviously the wrong decision.

[Ron]

He should have kept his mouth shut and retreated to cover,concealment or escape.

The reason he didn't shoot was he couldn't identify who did the initial shooting. Even when the bad guy with a gun appears in front of him he was not 100% sure that it was the bad guy. The article states pretty clearly he never saw the initial shooting take place so how could he know?

Rule # 4

    Be absolutely sure
    of your target, and
    what is behind it.

[SADShooter]

But making the wrong choice doesn't invalidate having a choice in the first place. It mystifies me that many people accept "choice" as a concept so selectively. I go armed because it offers me an option. I'm aware that the outcome may not be what I wanted/expected.

[zahc]

If he had time to say "You need to put your gun down," he had time to draw his own gun and fire several shots.

In retrospect, it appears that's the case.

The armchair quarterbacking in this thread (and others) is strong. Armed confrontations do not occur in the internet analysis spacetime where there is Max Payne-style time dialation complete with Prince of Persia-style time-rewind. In this particular shooting, the actions taken (whether they were deliberated, instinctual, reflexive, or whatever) resulted in a sub-optimal result. That's all we have to work with. IN THIS PARTICULAR encounter, his course of actions did not work out for him.

In another universe, he chose not to put his gun away, and got shot by an off-duty cop or other CCW. The Internet Armchair Quarterbacks (IAC's) decry his lack of judgement in 'walking around the mall with a gun out when there is no target in sight'.

In another universe, he did NOT pause for a split second when he was confronted by the shooter, and did a mozambique RFN. In that universe, the shooter turned out to be an armed citizen who went out to his car and got his trunk gun. The IAC's decry his idiocy at not verifying his target.

No matter what, the IAC's have something to criticize, which makes them feel better. But the real world is like one of those choose-your-own adventure books, only you can't cheat by holding your last place with your pinky finger so you can go back when it turns out you did one of the 90 actions that end the story and not one of the 5 that result in victory.

[Ron]

Arm chair QB'ng = after action report

If I finally get the opportunity to carry legally I will not rush in to save the day when I hear gunfire. At the very minimum I will find concealment or better yet cover.  Then I will attempt to asses the situation. Facilitating others and my own escape is my plan.

Stories like this just reenforce the action plan that I've adopted since putting thought to the subject some years ago.

[charby]

Our tax dollars at work.

Did you know very little of NPR's budget comes from governmental bodies?

http://www.npr.org/about/aboutnpr/publicradiofinances.html

[SADShooter]

Did you know very little of NPR's budget comes from governmental bodies?

http://www.npr.org/about/aboutnpr/publicradiofinances.html

OK. Then why do we permit them the credibility associated with the term "Public", implying a special impartial or non-commercial status? No trolling, I think it's a fair question when they work at having it both ways.

[zxcvbob]

Would I be the only who's annoyed that NPR decided to focus on a case of defensive gun use that went horribly, terribly wrong?

I think it's important to focus on those cases.  I'm annoyed (to put it mildly) that they ONLY focused on this case and did also show one that went right.

[Perd Hapley]

Did you know very little of NPR's budget comes from governmental bodies?

http://www.npr.org/about/aboutnpr/publicradiofinances.html

Yup. I have a lifetime of exposure to public radio, so...

All the more reason why they need to be shoved off the teet. Let John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur dole out a little more of their sweet mullah, to make up the difference.


Also, while Googling to make sure I was getting their names right, I found this digital Valentine's card: