• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Shooting at IHOP Carson City Nv

bigtoe416

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jun 3, 2008
Messages
1,747
Location
Oregon
UPDATE (4): The AP reports the gunman has died of self-inflicted wounds.

I wonder if the national guard members were being specifically targeted.
 

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
Unless the National Guardsmen were in uniform or the shooter knew them, I wouldn't speculate in that direction. Were they people who worked at WallyWorld, would we speculate that someone was targeting WW?

Quite possible that they were just friends who had met at IHOP.

[edit:] Last thing heard on the radio on the way to get vittles....
Five of the nine were NG and in uniform.
Shooter is identified as Eduardo Sencion of Carson City.
 
Last edited:

coolusername2007

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2009
Messages
1,659
Location
Temecula, California, USA
I don't know all the details surrounding this tragedy, but to me the real shame to this whole deal is that it doesn't appear any open or concealed carriers were anywhere to be found to put a stop to it.

With Nevada being an open carry state (no permit required) and as far as I know having easily obtained concealed carry permits you would have thought someone could have had a positive impact here to save lives.

To the PRK politicians, especially to Jerry Brown at this moment in time all I can say is this is why you need a gun to order a hamburger!!!
 

ConditionThree

State Pioneer
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
2,231
Location
Shasta County, California, USA
I don't know all the details surrounding this tragedy, but to me the real shame to this whole deal is that it doesn't appear any open or concealed carriers were anywhere to be found to put a stop to it.

With Nevada being an open carry state (no permit required) and as far as I know having easily obtained concealed carry permits you would have thought someone could have had a positive impact here to save lives.

To the PRK politicians, especially to Jerry Brown at this moment in time all I can say is this is why you need a gun to order a hamburger!!!

Presence of another armed person- even licensed, doesnt mean they will step up to the plate when needed.

A witness told the newspaper he saw the gunman, who has been identified as Eduardo Sencion, 32, exit a minivan parked in front of the IHOP and immediately gun down a man on a motorcycle in the strip mall parking lot. He then went inside and opened fire with what police said was an automatic weapon.

"He stepped out of the car and started shooting," said Ralph Swagler, owner of a nearby barbecue restaurant. "I had my pistol, but I wasn't going to go up against an automatic rifle."

Read more: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2011/09/06/UPI-NewsTrack-TopNews/UPI-67401315361587/#ixzz1XtLEMqPL
 

coolusername2007

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2009
Messages
1,659
Location
Temecula, California, USA
Presence of another armed person- even licensed, doesnt mean they will step up to the plate when needed.



Read more: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2011/09/06/UPI-NewsTrack-TopNews/UPI-67401315361587/#ixzz1XtLEMqPL

That's the first account I've read stating a gun owner was nearby. I would argue that in an active mass casualty shooting like this one has a moral obligation and duty to assist his fellow man. For those who don't there's word for that. I hope he can sleep at night.
 

ConditionThree

State Pioneer
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
2,231
Location
Shasta County, California, USA
I think this may be a separate incident here.

http://www.rgj.com/article/20110906/NEWS01/110906010/Authorities-expect-release-names-those-killed-Carson-City-IHOP-shooting?odyssey=mod</p><p>breaking</p><p>text</p><p>FRONTPAGE

Turn to page five in their updates.

While carrying a gun enables you to take a life, one must resolve it in their minds to do so when the need to defend yourself or others arises. In this instance, it appears Swagler elected to seek cover instead of pursue a life and death confrontation with an active shooter. It is very easy for us to second guess this decision since we are removed from those circumstances- but I would question why I carried a firearm if I was reluctant to drop the hammer on someone who was clearly intending to commit murder.
 

coolusername2007

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2009
Messages
1,659
Location
Temecula, California, USA
http://www.rgj.com/article/20110906/NEWS01/110906010/Authorities-expect-release-names-those-killed-Carson-City-IHOP-shooting?odyssey=mod</p><p>breaking</p><p>text</p><p>FRONTPAGE

Turn to page five in their updates.

While carrying a gun enables you to take a life, one must resolve it in their minds to do so when the need to defend yourself or others arises. In this instance, it appears Swagler elected to seek cover instead of pursue a life and death confrontation with an active shooter. It is very easy for us to second guess this decision since we are removed from those circumstances- but I would question why I carried a firearm if I was reluctant to drop the hammer on someone who was clearly intending to commit mass murder.

Fixed it for ya.
 

Polynikes

Regular Member
Joined
May 18, 2011
Messages
182
Location
Colorado Springs
...I would argue that in an active mass casualty shooting like this one has a moral obligation and duty to assist his fellow man. For those who don't there's word for that. I hope he can sleep at night.


That's a ridiculous assertion, and I'd politely ask you not to impress your moral code upon me. When I make a decision to carry a weapon, it's not because I see myself as a protector of the citizenry as a whole. It's to protect me and mine. Simply because I have shouldered that responsibility, I'm not volunteering to protect everyone else that comes my way. They have to decide for themselves what their own safety and security is worth. Selfish? Maybe, but I don't buy into the whole "sheepdog" mentality.
My stance is quite simple. I'm not inclined to put my life on the line for Joe Schmuck, who decides not to look after his own safety, when doing so means that my wife and kids may not have a father coming home to them. If that means that I'm sacrificing my community for the sake of my family, I'm very OK with that. My family is the only flock I worry about.
 

markm

New member
Joined
Mar 7, 2010
Messages
487
Location
, ,
No Moral Obligation Whatsoever!

That's a ridiculous assertion, and I'd politely ask you not to impress your moral code upon me. When I make a decision to carry a weapon, it's not because I see myself as a protector of the citizenry as a whole. It's to protect me and mine. Simply because I have shouldered that responsibility, I'm not volunteering to protect everyone else that comes my way. They have to decide for themselves what their own safety and security is worth. Selfish? Maybe, but I don't buy into the whole "sheepdog" mentality.
My stance is quite simple. I'm not inclined to put my life on the line for Joe Schmuck, who decides not to look after his own safety, when doing so means that my wife and kids may not have a father coming home to them. If that means that I'm sacrificing my community for the sake of my family, I'm very OK with that. My family is the only flock I worry about.

Polynikes,

+1 on your post.

Furthermore, running into the IHOP with a handgun blazing is a good way to get yourself shot by another legally armed law-abiding citizen. People in the IHOP would not know if you are a good guy or an accomplice.

A co-worker of mine has three relatives who were in the IHOP. One was shot through the ass, and his wife had two bullets hit on both sides of her while she was frozen in her seat. Their response was to either freeze, or hide under the table, and not defend themselves.

I have been in situations where hand-to-hand violence was about to erupt, and in both cases, I offensively ran-up to my friend who was about to be beat-down, and joined the ensuing battle. This show of force ended the confrontaion (the perps thought this smiling-guy who joined the battle was a little crazy). Notwthstanding my actions in those situations, I believe (I hope) I would have acted offensively if I had been in IHOP and was a target. Presuming I did act, I would not have acted to save people who were hiding under their table awaiting their bullet to arrive. I would have joined the battle to get my revenge on the shooter for ruining by breakfast (really--I can be a very shallow person).

To iterate, I have no moral obligation to get involved in a situation where I don't know the situation, nor the actors involved, either good or bad. The people outside the building did not know the situation inside IHOP.

The police do have a moral obligation to run-in and save lives. Too bad they don't.

markm
 
Last edited:

markm

New member
Joined
Mar 7, 2010
Messages
487
Location
, ,
News Flash!!

ABC news has just reported that the shooter at IHOP was diagnosed as a schizophrenic and on meds.

markm
 

coolusername2007

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2009
Messages
1,659
Location
Temecula, California, USA
That's a ridiculous assertion, and I'd politely ask you not to impress your moral code upon me. When I make a decision to carry a weapon, it's not because I see myself as a protector of the citizenry as a whole. It's to protect me and mine. Simply because I have shouldered that responsibility, I'm not volunteering to protect everyone else that comes my way. They have to decide for themselves what their own safety and security is worth. Selfish? Maybe, but I don't buy into the whole "sheepdog" mentality.
My stance is quite simple. I'm not inclined to put my life on the line for Joe Schmuck, who decides not to look after his own safety, when doing so means that my wife and kids may not have a father coming home to them. If that means that I'm sacrificing my community for the sake of my family, I'm very OK with that. My family is the only flock I worry about.

No, its not a ridiculous assertion by any means. To use your words I'd politely ask you to not impress your immoral code upon me.

Regardless of one's position on bearing arms that doesn't make their life worth any less than anyone else's. And yes, one's primary concern should be their own safety and the needs of their family. Certainly getting yourself killed while attempting to help others is no help at all and leaves your family grieving.

As for me, I prefer to live life by the Golden Rule, do unto others as you would have them do unto you. So, getting back to Joe Schmuck (as you callously named him) I try to remember that he has a family too. And maybe he doesn't normally carry. Or maybe he's working and not allowed to carry. Or maybe he's like many pro-2A'ers and permit holders across the nation who don't carry everyday. Or whatever. But in a mass shooting scenario those people are in a life and death situation by the actions of a suicidal maniac and they are in need. And there is a chance that one or more of those persons could be one of your family members, maybe a brother or sister, or mom or dad, niece or nephew, aunt or uncle. And simply based on carry statistics I know that not everyone of them carries everywhere, everyday. Wouldn't you want someone to come to their aid if ever needed? I know that if they were my family members and an able bodied, trained, armed citizen was around I'd be mighty grateful that they stepped up and helped if they could have.

And no, you shouldn't seek out to help everyone the comes your way, after all superheroes are fiction. But in those rare and dire circumstances that we all hope don't happen to us if an able bodied, trained, armed citizen was around, and could have helped, and turned their back on those people that is simply unconscionable. Period.
 

coolusername2007

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2009
Messages
1,659
Location
Temecula, California, USA
Polynikes,

+1 on your post.

Furthermore, running into the IHOP with a handgun blazing is a good way to get yourself shot by another legally armed law-abiding citizen. People in the IHOP would not know if you are a good guy or an accomplice.

To iterate, I have no moral obligation to get involved in a situation where I don't know the situation, nor the actors involved, either good or bad. The people outside the building did not know the situation inside IHOP.

The police do have a moral obligation to run-in and save lives. Too bad they don't.

markm

Clearly its situation specific. But to be in a position to help and turn your back is pathetic.

2A for Dummies.jpg
 

Polynikes

Regular Member
Joined
May 18, 2011
Messages
182
Location
Colorado Springs
No, its not a ridiculous assertion by any means. To use your words I'd politely ask you to not impress your immoral code upon me....

Here's the distinction that you fail to understand. I'm not trying to impress my "immoral code" on you or anyone else, so it would be appropriate for you to retract your unfounded accussations right about now. Nowhere in my post did I state that anyone refusing to subscribe to my perspective was wrong, whereas you clearly stated that anyone not subscribing to your point of view is little better than a coward, evidenced by how you refer to my point of view as "immoral" simply because it's not like yours.

I sincerely hope you can differentiate between my stated point of view and your attempt to impress an imaginary code of conduct on anyone who reads your post. I don't see things your way, and no matter how you try to argue your point, my opinion will not change. Despite your condescending tone and attempt to preach from atop your high horse, you will not browbeat anyone here into submission, my friend.

Sorry, I'm not buying it.
 

Freedom First

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2010
Messages
845
Location
Kennewick, Wa.
That's the first account I've read stating a gun owner was nearby. I would argue that in an active mass casualty shooting like this one has a moral obligation and duty to assist his fellow man. For those who don't there's word for that. I hope he can sleep at night.

My premise: True Freedom is taking total responsibility for yourself.

Is it your assertion that the gun owner on site has a "Moral Obligation" to respond to a AK armed shooter by laying his life down for complete strangers? And this is based soley on the fact that he has taken up his personal responsibility to defend himself?

That doesn't work for me. I have said it many times here, I am no man's protector. I protect myself and my family and it ends there. I may CHOOSE to act on the behalf of another, but I am in no way bound to do so.

Am I a coward? No. My primary goal behind me and my wife being armed is to make sure that we make it home safely every day. Were I to hear AK fire at a business near me, I am heading the other way with my family in tow. Were we trapped inside that business, then, and only then, would those around me benefit from my choice to carry and train with my firearm.

From a logical view of the situation, what if the gun owner carries but never practices? Runs in and winds up shooting more people than the evil psycho with the AK? Crowded resturant, chaos everywhere, adrenaline pumping and no practice? Sounds like he might be more help if he uses the 911 gun.

And lastly, until you walk in his shoes, don't call him a coward. You don't know.
 

Polynikes

Regular Member
Joined
May 18, 2011
Messages
182
Location
Colorado Springs
My premise: True Freedom is taking total responsibility for yourself.

Is it your assertion that the gun owner on site has a "Moral Obligation" to respond to a AK armed shooter by laying his life down for complete strangers? And this is based soley on the fact that he has taken up his personal responsibility to defend himself?

That doesn't work for me. I have said it many times here, I am no man's protector. I protect myself and my family and it ends there. I may CHOOSE to act on the behalf of another, but I am in no way bound to do so.

Am I a coward? No. My primary goal behind me and my wife being armed is to make sure that we make it home safely every day. Were I to hear AK fire at a business near me, I am heading the other way with my family in tow. Were we trapped inside that business, then, and only then, would those around me benefit from my choice to carry and train with my firearm.

From a logical view of the situation, what if the gun owner carries but never practices? Runs in and winds up shooting more people than the evil psycho with the AK? Crowded resturant, chaos everywhere, adrenaline pumping and no practice? Sounds like he might be more help if he uses the 911 gun.

And lastly, until you walk in his shoes, don't call him a coward. You don't know.

Bingo.
 
Top