CCW ARSON

Would a CCW holder have helped in this situation or were they fucked no matter what because of the design of the building preventing meaningful escape?

Attached: kyoani_arson.jpg (780x438, 57K)

CCW holders are not first responders. They are individual citizens. They are NOT meant to do anything more than individual defense.

Your question thus is can a civilian escape a burning building. They can do it just about as good as anyone else.

Please stop acting like CCW holders are larping wannabe law enforcement/first responders.

This, the amount of times a CCW person has saved people other than themselves in a dangerous situation is like 1% compared to the amount of times they haven't been around, even in America where they are pretty common. The chances of a CCW holder actually being in the right time at the right place to shoot a dangerous person before they can do harm is extremely unlikely.

Well, I guess I agree but I'm just saying that you don't need a gun to escape a building. And you're not going to catch an arsonist in the act.

T. Doesn't have his CCW Badge

Attached: Real Man rite here.jpg (266x300, 30K)

>design prevented escape
The dude lit the area around the emergency exit on fire.

Attached: 1405024364299.jpg (862x862, 74K)

Attached: we're the best.png (137x209, 27K)

i wonder where you got those opinions from

Trolling is not allowed outside /b/.
Posting animal abuse images/videos is a true mark of a piece of shit psychopath whose head should be kicked in.

Isn't that the dog that got snapped the fuck in half by the bigger dog in that chicks fancy apartment?

yeah, it's sick shit and not allowed on blue boards. that asshole is just trying to sink this thread by posting animal abuse gore.

Unless they got the shot off before he lit the building, concealed carry is useless. Fire codes exist for a reason.

If there was a person carrying outside and he sees someone dousing entrances in gasoline and lighter fluid would that be precedent enough to take a shot to prevent him from lighting up?

Kind of blows a whole in the fantasy of “the good guy with a gun” scenario, especially when you consider the fact that the officer in Florida chose not to engage, but wait it out. 90% of the population would as it’s the logical thing to do as well. It’s almost like the majority of people here base their entire knowledge of life or death situations based on fictional content they’ve been inundated with via Hollywood since they were children.

why shoot him when you could easily just grab him, tackle him or at the very least yell at him.

That’d be a tough call. How do you know what he’s splashing around? Could just be piss cause he’s mad. If you knew it was gasoline I think a court/jury would side with you. But only about 55%.

Fuck off schizo duckposter.

im scared what was it?

Gorefaggot posting on a blue board

>Could just be piss cause he’s mad.
Could be. But piss doesn't smell like gasoline, and the smell of gasoline is pretty fucking obvious.
Besides, people spraying piss tend not to scream "die" to their intended victims.

That said, I do think it's very unlikely that a CCW holder could have stopped this. It would have to very good timing. Possible Yes. Likely no.

I hate it when people put the responsibilities whenever stuff like this happens to gun owners. Always the "where were you" or "there's no good guy with a gun" because we're not there and we can't carry it there. And when the tragedy was stopped no one was talking about it.

>not shooting the fire to death

WTF is wrong with Jow Forums

The fire will shoot back.

There are definitely a sizeable number of people that would go out of their way to stop a mass murder, user. I think it's much higher than you think.

You have to shoot the base of the fire, where it's the weakest.

>especially when you consider the fact that the officer in Florida chose not to engage
That's because cops are cowards.

The question is could you actually do it in this case? How would it actually go down?

Someone would have to notice the fuckhead pouring out the gasoline, recognize what was going on, then put him down before he manages to get out the lighter. And even if you did put a few rounds in the asshole there's no guarantee he wouldn't be able to light the gas before he finally died. This situation isn't like stopping a shooter with a gun, all the arsonist needs is a split second to light the gas and everyone is fucked.

Muh sheepdog

I also think that situation is a very very different one than the one here.

Consider the cop at the school: he knows there's an active shooter in the building. He can hear the gunshots going off. He has plenty of time to think about what he's going to do. Fear can build in his brain, he has to make the choice to actively seek out danger under those situations. He has to overcome his fear and enter the building which contains the shooter, and for all he knows the shooter is right around a corner just waiting to put a slug in him.

OTOH, if someone fuckhead walks into an office and starts shooting (or spilling gas) the situation is very different: you're already in the building with the attacker. you don't have to make a concious decision to expose yourself to more harm. If anything you might consider the act of drawing your CCW to be something that reduces harm in your mind. There's no time to think about what's going on, you can see the attacker.

Those two are not the same situation at all.

Shooting him could only improve your odds. He didn't seem to be going there to die, so inflicting a near-fatal or fatal wound could keep him from igniting it since he won't want to light himself on fire. Even a suicidal man may not want to burn alive. You could also simply stop him from spreading it as perfectly as he was able to. Maybe only half of the entrance gets caught on fire, giving you a minute to escape at first, or the gasoline isn't spread thick enough and the flames are small enough to run through initially. There is no part of this made harder by shooting him.

I do admit that shooting him would only improve your odds, yes. But that's being rather pedantic. I think the chance of anyone putting him down before he managed to light the gas is minimal. I doubt anyone really noticed what was happening until the fire was already lit.

>There is no part of this made harder by shooting him.
Agreed. I wasn't saying it was a bad idea to shoot him. I was saying that I think it would be unlikely that anyone would realize they needed to shoot him until it was too late.

>just shoot the fire bro

The Japanese need to pull their heads out of their asses and move their building codes and architecture past 1970. This shit is going to keep happening. The buildings aren't even required to have fire suppression. It was fucking embarassing to see the bird's eye shot of that section of Kyoto because it looks like a Polish ghetto from the 90's.

And what's ridiculous about this is that this is not a new problem for Japan.

Fire was a HUGE problem throughout history. There were many huge fires even back in the Edo period--it turns out that wooden buildings with rice-paper walls and lots of silk everywhere are really really flammable--a fact that people were reminded of yet AGAIN during WWII.

It's honestly mindboggling. Japan has some of the worlds most advanced infrastructure: their trains are legendary, their earthquake-resistant building tech is great, their floodwater abatement system (G-CANS) is unbelievably impressive. So why is it that they failed so hard for fire?

If they had racial resistances for EVERY element it would just make them totally imbalanced.