Concealed carry: now more than ever?

[Warp]

Take the mass shooting threats from Islamic terrorists and crazed killers out of the picture and I would say that it is need now more than ever. We still have to deal with domestic terror threats from groups like the Nation of Islam, black lives matter, the next riot in an American city stemming from a police shooting, the Knockout Game, flash mobs robbing stores and beating customers and employees, and the gangbangers.

Then there's the less organized threats like the murders and rapists on the streets, occasional mugger, drunk vagrant, road rage incident, and nutcase they just released from the state hospital the week before.

Add to it the newfound appreciation for the right to carry, it's just good to do it to keep the anti's heads spinning.

Violent crime is at a 50 year low.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

I think it is becoming clear to more people that gun control laws don't disarm the bad guys and only pose a burden on those willing to abide by the law.


added:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx
Gallup Poll over the years: Should there be a law to ban possession of handguns except by police or other authorized persons?
1959 60% yes; 36% no; 4% undecided
2015 27% yes; 72% no; 1% undecided

The anti-gunners have become a minority. An increasingly shrill minority, but still a minority.

 

[Guy B. Meredith]

We need to change the conversation and make it about "disarming the victims". AND as suggested above do everything in our power to make training available.

I also think the training should also include going through action shooting stages to help people sort it out and practice safety.

I would gladly volunteer my time for any such programs.

 

[gun_with_a_view]

I think any event in which two or more people are shot is being called a "mass shooting". Of course that is as ridiculous as it is erroneous. But if you strip away these minor shootings and get down to the real thing, go back to Aug. 1, 1966 when Charles Whitman entered the top of the University of Texas tower in Austin, and opened fire with a rifle, killing 14 people and wounding thirty-two. Now look forward from there to the dates of subsequent like events, and one can see a volume of mass shootings sufficient to establish commonality.

The above does not even pretend to factor in what could have been mass shootings (or other) save for the fact various plots were disrupted by law enforcement.

The number of incidents and potential incidents has become alarming enough in recent years to cause a person to consider abandoning revolvers and switching to semi-autos.

 

[Guy B. Meredith]

Abandon revolvers? Ain't gonna happen.

Working on longer distances, though, with the possibility that attacks are including other than up close and personal types.

 

[seeker_two]

Jeanne Assam and the Garland PD are all the argument for carrying I need.....

 

[TruthTellers]

Violent crime is at a 50 year low.

50 year low? Until it's eliminated entirely, I'll support concealed carry.

 

[AlexanderA]

Just because people are carrying guns doesn't necessarily mean that they would intervene in a mass shooting situation. Their first instinct would be to save themselves; indeed, in most states, the license to carry a gun is for defensive purposes only -- it doesn't authorize the carrier to act as a policeman. This in fact has been the experience in previous shootings, such as the Gabby Giffords incident. (A legal gun carrier was there, but didn't draw his gun.)

In order to prove that widespread carrying of guns stops mass shootings, you would have to show some instances in which carriers did intervene to take down the active shooters. That's asking a lot of the gun carriers. They would not only be placing themselves in physical danger (from the active shooter as well as from any police that might be arriving), but also they would be opening themselves to legal liability if anything went wrong.

 

[X-Rap]

In the Giffords incident i doubt that an LEO would have fired into that mass of people, they may have drawn a weapon but stopping that type of shooting will involve physical force more than gunfire IMO.
In a situation in which the shooter is more separated from bystanders I'd expect a civilians reaction to be almost a coin toss depending on circumstances at the moment like cover, accomplices, distance, confidence. We are not obligated by anything more than our humanity and how we answer to ourselves and our maker for doing nothing when we could have made a difference.

 

[Guy B. Meredith]

I've given some thought as to what I'd do in a situation where I am not the target or likely target of a perp. I think that unless I am a target I may not be contributing to the stats on mass shootings stopped by CCW. Of course, the emotion of the moment might change that.

First, if I'm not a target it may be hard to know what is really going on--who's doing self defense and who is the attacker.

Second, I am not an LEO, not trained for the situation.

Third, I am really dithering over whether I should be a martyr to protect people who should be protecting themselves, particularly when some may be the same who are trying to keep me from protecting myself.

In the case where I am a target such as being the the fight stage of "run, hide, fight" strategy for an active shooter the situation is crystal clear and dropping behind cover and returning fire from a low position so bullets would go over the heads of others would be the plan. The fact that others might benefit from my action is just their good fortune.

Again, in the excitement of the moment my reactions might be to be protective. Hope I never have to find out.

 

[Warp]

50 year low? Until it's eliminated entirely, I'll support concealed carry.

Absolutely.

Well, I support every individual having the freedom of choice, to be able to openly or concealed carry whatever firearm(s) they choose, regardless of what the violent crime rate is or where within the US they reside/travel.

I'm just saying, statements like "Then there's the less organized threats like the murders and rapists on the streets, occasional mugger, drunk vagrant, road rage incident, and nutcase they just released from the state hospital the week before" don't really communicate the fact that violent crime is lower than it has been in many decades, and lower than it is has been in many of our lifetimes

 

[stonecutter2]

O.P.,

Without knowing what State you live in I don't what kind of trees you have but in the majority of States gun laws are being less restrictive and right to carry are being expanded.

States Expanded Gun Rights After Sandy Hook Massacre

"IOWA CITY, Iowa (AP) — The 2012 massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School, in which a mentally troubled young man killed 26 children and teachers, served as a rallying cry for gun-control advocates across the nation.

But in the three years since, many states have moved in the opposite direction, embracing the National Rifle Association's axiom that more "good guys with guns" are needed to deter mass shootings.

In Kansas, gun owners can now carry concealed weapons without obtaining a license. In Texas, those with permits will soon be able to carry openly in holsters and bring concealed weapons into some college classrooms. And in Arkansas, gun enthusiasts may be able to carry weapons into polling places next year when they vote for president.

Dozens of new state laws have made it easier to obtain guns and carry them in more public places and made it harder for local governments to enact restrictions, according to a review of state legislation by The Associated Press. The number of guns manufactured and sold and the number of permits to carry concealed weapons have also increased, data show."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...643e4b0fccee16ee327?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

Illinois also made concealed carry lawful, as a shall issue.

 

[Zendude]

Not sure why one's ability to stop a mass shooter or not has anything to do with the right to conceal carry.

 

[X-Rap]

Not sure why one's ability to stop a mass shooter or not has anything to do with the right to conceal carry.

Certainly no more reason than your ability to swim obligates you to save someone who is drowning or your first aid training at work or military makes you responsible to administer aid to a stranger. But if you have the ability to use acquired skills and you believe you can make a game changing difference would you do it?

 

[Zendude]

Certainly no more reason than your ability to swim obligates you to save someone who is drowning or your first aid training at work or military makes you responsible to administer aid to a stranger. But if you have the ability to use acquired skills and you believe you can make a game changing difference would you do it?

I would hope so. That is why training is so important.

 

[old lady new shooter]

I'd like to see the arm up calls taken a step further. Pass laws allowing State/county/Local ranges to be opened to the public under controlled conditions with liability waivors, and volunteer leo or certified instructors donating time to give live fire classes free of charge just byoa. Considered part of the common/civil defense. Teach people both how to shoot at a basic lvl beyond simple CCW classes, and legal stressing this doesn't make you a cop cause you know there'd be "that guy." Wouldn't cost the gov a dime so long as there's protection against liability.

Wow, that would be fantastic!

 

[230RN]

Red Wing mentioned:

They had dogs sniffing around the parking lots at the City I worked at for 20 years, Doctor. Those dogs can be trained to smell ammo. The cops loved to get those ammo hits.

I wonder what would happen if someone sprinkled a little Unique or BullsEye around. A dab here, a flyspeck there... maybe a grain or two near the CEO's car....

A trail of it ending at a sewer grate...

Might be amusing, no?



I'm not signing this one so nobody will know who posted it.

 

[Warp]

Not sure why one's ability to stop a mass shooter or not has anything to do with the right to conceal carry.

That is a good point and worth stating explicitly.

 

[230RN]

Warp mentioned,

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zendude View Post
Not sure why one's ability to stop a mass shooter or not has anything to do with the right to conceal carry.

That is a good point and worth stating explicitly.

It really is a good point. Firstly, the more CCWers there are, the more opportunities there are to stop the threat. Some may think it's like charging a machine gun nest with a bolt-action .22, but the point is that if you make the decision to resist, you have a better chance even if other CCWers only have "bolt-action .22s."

Secondly, two words: Suppressive fire.

A lot of the pre-assumptions I see here is that you must disable the shooter with your shots.

But really all you must do is make him duck or escape.

Moreover, some or most of them seem to intend to take themselves out after their "statement" is made. If you can encourage them to do that, even with a missed shot, so much the better.

I have carefully thought this out for my own case, and I figure if I can save one younger person's life by attracting his fire, also, so much the better. I have dealt at length on my thinking on this, with four disclaimers:

1. I am not chest-thumping.

2. I am 76-77 years old, widowed, and my kids are independent.

3. This is not recommended for those of you with your whole lives ahead of you, with kids and a mortgage to pay. You must think this out for yourself.

4. I will only return fire if I am not surrounded by other innocents, and considering what lies beyond my target.

Nevertheless, I figure my little red laser dot dancing around him may distract him enough to save others.

Again, I have thought this out carefully ever since that nutjob started shooting up a shopping mall from its balcony years ago, and I have dealt with this extensively in previous posts.

Terry, 230RN

REF:
http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=10078846&postcount=37

 

[Arcticfox]

"

Just because people are carrying guns doesn't necessarily mean that they would intervene in a mass shooting situation."

I don't expect a concealed carrier to intervene. But, I will refer to the Paris shooting. There is a video of a woman hiding under a table, and a terrorist casually walking up to her and putting an AK to her head and pulling the trigger. Luckily, it didn't go off. But had SHE been armed, she could at least have contested her own death, and possibly saved others in the process of eliminating that threat to her.

 

[JSH1]

I'm far more likely to be shot by my wife than some random stranger on the street. Therefore I'm nice to my wife.

Please don't fall for the hysteria. The USA is far safer today than it was 20 years ago.

 

[230RN]

^ Old quote: "It's not the odds involved... it's the stakes involved."

I'm no actuary, but it does seem like the odds are changing.

Terry, 230RN

 

[JSH1]

The odds are changing - the USA continues to get safer.

 

[txblackout]

In light of the seemingly ever-more-common "mass shootings," the frequent conservative response is to arm more people, carry more often, or push to allow arms in typically restricted places (or all of the above). The only way to validate that theory is to put it into action. I feel we are only two or three more mass shootings away from some seriously restrictive legislation. With this possibility, I am thinking we may be in a "Kill or Cure" (pardon the expression) mode of not only defending our rights, but proving to our doubters, and maybe ourselves, that more armed people can create a deterrence. The thought is, start our own rev0lution, so to speak, to encourage all CCL holders to carry at all times, where legally allowed. Also, encourage annual tactical training to hone skills. Am I reinventing the wheel here? Or maybe I am barking up the wrong tree?

BTW, does anyone carry at work, even though your company forbids it?

Thanks for reading.

Arcticfox

The news may publicize them, but they are a drop in the bucket compared to a thousand other things you could die from but dont worry about.

I am not changing my behavior one bit as a result of mass shootings.

30,000 die in car accidents
3600 people drown every year
2500 people die due to choking
1300 people die due to falling down stairs
565 people die due to tripping on level ground (my cousin died when he tripped getting out of his car)
26 people die from dog bites

http://danger.mongabay.com/injury_death.htm

~20 people die each year as a result of a mass shooting.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-data

 

[JSH1]

The news may publicize them, but they are a drop in the bucket compared to a thousand other things you could die from but dont worry about.

Very true. Humans are horrible at logically determining risk. We are almost always more afraid of dying in some rare but unusual way then very common ways. The most dangerous thing most of use do is eat cheeseburgers and drive cars.

I am not changing my behavior one bit as a result of mass shootings.

Nor am I.