Theres been quite a few shooters who have been stopped with one determined civilian with their side arm. If the these civilians had not been there to stop the shooter they would have been all over the news with dozens dead or wounded.
You should also put yourself in that situation if that was you with the sidearm would you just lay down and let them murder you? Or would you try to stop them knowing you could save lives including yours. Self preservation is not heroics its basic human nature.
I know the name of the cite is biased so feel free to research these incidents.
Here are some more links.
if you had stood up and fired back you would have died and made no difference , the guys had body armour chances are your rounds wouldnt have done alot before they turned and shot you down with AK’s , this isnt hollywood , a pistol is near enough useless in that situation , unless someone brings an AR 15 , m4 etc then really you are not saving anyone .
clearly this is situation dependent , some situations i would support jumping up and being a hero but when they are so heavily armed you really are not going to do alot.
so i put the question to you , in that scene would yo have got up and fired at them with your side arm
Im well aware that you would have little chance but would you rather just sit down and let them kill you? Wouldn’t you take that chance no matter how small if it could save your life and possibly the lives of others as well? I mean if if you’re going to die wouldn’t you want the chance to at least weaken the attacker so you could give police or someone else a slightly better chance of stopping them? One of the north hollywood shooters was brought down because a cop shot him in the foot and they were literally covered head to toe in extremely thick body armor. Were the shooters this heavily armored or were they just wearing basic bullet proof vests?
I would like to think i wouldn’t just let them murder me without a fight but i really cant say because ive never been in a situation like that before. I gave you my answer so i would like yours. Remember in this situation you are going to die anyway. Your options are lay down and die or attempt to try and stop them.
they have vests on , both were spraying the rooms up the moment you stood up you would have died , be lucky to get a shot off .
personally i would try to hide , under desk etc , gun drawn maybe get a cheap shot into the side of their head or legs .
i imagine the office was open plan so really there would be no cover .
if there was only one i would without a doubt attempt to fight back but sensibly . depends on the layout of the office really.
its a hard question to answer , not everyone in the room died remember people were able to run out
Thats all i wanted to hear believe i wouldn’t try to rush out at them that would be suicidal. I just wanted to know if you would take the chance to defend yourself. But if something like that ever happend i would much rather have some armed in the room with me then everyone defenseless.
Hahaha you have to see this one it will fucking kill you
1 Like
The pictures with the monkeys on the car was my favorite. You really could’t ell the difference.
1 Like
1 Like
Dont you just love the internet 
its what the internet was made for 
1 Like
OK, lets imagine Charlie Hebdo is in Prague or in Austin, TX. There are about 20 people inside. They get death threats daily and they were firebombed in 2011. In such situation, if I am very sceptic, I think there would be at least 6 people with their CC pistols. If I were optimistic, I’d say 12-15 with CC pistols (half of them trained enough to be very effective) and 2-4 SBRs relatively quickly accessible (I know I would have one near if I got daily death threats at the work address).
With the pesimistic number the worst case scenario would be probably about the same death toll between the newspapermen, but with the two perps being unable to get out on their own.
Even if I were the only one in whole office that is armed, I’d prefer to die on my feet doing my best to take the fucker down with me than being down on my knees sobbing waiting for the end.
Now the second Paris case. If there was a SINGLE person with CC firearm, it would have ended quite fast. Just ANYONE shooting him while he is not looking their way. Four lives would have been saved.
Are we talking about the same case?
First, the cops did not choose the timing - the fact that the other two stormed out elsewhere and the one inside made it clear he will kill the hostages if the other two are engaged by police forced them in. Secondly, they needed to open the metal blind first which made a rather small entry point that was immediately showered by rain of 7.62×39mms, i.e. forget body armor. All things considered, it was a bad ending to situation that offered no better one.
You are forgetting that it was close quarters within a bulding. I agree, on the street, the disparity is huge. Close quarters inside - bad, but much, much better then outside.
While British cops are trained to stay 250 meters away and make sure no more people come into the scene of active incident, the Czech ones are trained to go immediately in, take cover and keep the attacker busy with pistol fire until guys with better arms arrive. And busy is what I would give them for as long as I would be able or did not run out of my 15+16 rounds I usually have.
From what I read nobody ran out. The attackers chose the victims mostly by name and told few ones explicitely they were not going to kill them.
1 Like
yea , that raid was carried out horrendously. for multiple reasons
- as you state the entry point they chose was a slow opening metal cover . i dont think you can get a worse entry point , youd be better off blowing your way through the wall to be quite honest . and if you had to go through that entry point you would blow through it ,
- they hesitated .
whats meant to happen is
-flash bang goes in
-assault team follows behind the flash bang with full numbers , this is done from multiple entry point in large numbers , numbers to annihilate .
they clearly had no plan .
there HAS to be an emergency reaction plan (plan B ) this is done by quickly identifying entrance points and exit point (never use the entrance as the exit ) separating into teams . these plans are basic however it allows there to be some kind of order during the assault . the whole purpose of this plan is that it can be carried out at any time . e.g hostages start being shot
then a proper plan is built up , this could take a matter of hours or even days to perfect . this is the deisred plan to be carried out .
conclusion is they were just regular police making do of the situation
you wouldnt have lasted any longer than 5 seconds . i doubt your rounds would do a thing to their body armour i know this for a fact as i was shot in the chest on tour entering a building from around 10 yards away with a makarov , while it left a bruise and took the wind out of me for a few moments i was fine .
[quote=“snejdarek, post:199, topic:21032”]
OK, lets imagine Charlie Hebdo is in Prague or in Austin, TX. There are about 20 people inside. They get death threats daily and they were firebombed in 2011. In such situation, if I am very sceptic, I think there would be at least 6 people with their CC pistols. If I were optimistic, I’d say 12-15 with CC pistols (half of them trained enough to be very effective) and 2-4 SBRs relatively quickly accessible (I know I would have one near if I got daily death threats at the work address).
[/quote] if that was the case then go for it , although they would have surprise
on their hands , so in that case it dependent on how quick you’re on your feet
[quote=“snejdarek, post:199, topic:21032”]
told few ones explicitely they were not going to kill them.
[/quote] that i did not hear
the assault in Sydney was a emergency reaction plan . as you see the difference between the two operations is staggering , the french police were lucky he just ran at them
what if you miss ? you would have to go for a head shot or its pointless
Makarov is pretty underpowered compared to luger. But I agree it would not get through, especially since I use softpoints instead of FMJs for CC.
That is why typical SD shooting training is two into the center of mass and one in the head. And again, luger would kick you a way more than makarov, making those few moments longer.
I honestly believe that if those inside would carry and practice, they would not dismiss gun fire in the lobby. They would not think the guys with guns in black is just a joke. They would up on their feet by the time those attackers would find their way into the offices.
Anyway, I did not argue I would make it. I also said that even with 6 civilians inside being armed, they would be unlikely to make it out. But with those numbers their odds would be about the same as those of the attackers. With optimistic scenario on the other hand, the odds would be very much in favor of the newspapermen, making such attack unprobable, making the only plausible scenario for the terrorists resorting to bombing.
When some Czech newspapermen go to war zone, they usually get a couple of weeks with Army Special Forces. From use of guns through sleep deprivation to simulated torture. In my opinion, that should be obligatory for all newspapermen in Europe who are on muslim blacklist. Of course, on top of their being able to be armed.
wouldnt of matter how long he shocked me for considering the 5 blokes behind me if he had been holding an AK well i dread to think really .
[quote=“snejdarek, post:204, topic:21032”]
That is why typical SD shooting training is two into the center of mass and one in the head
[/quote] ideally yes . this doesnt always work , and if you have an automatic rife i would advise instinctive shootings
you would think so however it depends on your state of mind , on whether you would simply brush it off as something else
