Concealed Handguns vs Orlando terrorism last night

I certainly do not consider the loss of one innocent bystander as "acceptable".Its tragic.

I do not care if its a SWAT team,Delta force,some Israeli hostage rescue tream,all professionals who train relentlessly,
if they are called in to do a job,innocents can,and do,get hurt or killed.

It could be argued that an armed citizen is inside the situation already,and know who to shoot.He,or she,does not have to enter,orient,and assess .

I do not think the armed citizen or a hostage rescue team can justify panic spray and pray 17 round mag dumps in a crowd.

My mental picture of the scene is one man standing up in the room.He is holding a rifle and shooting.Each shot represents someone being hit.

Do you envision other folks standing in the room?I do not.

I suspect I might be low,myself.

I think if our armed citizen is in the bad guy's area of observation,its one story.Rather desperate.But what are the options?

If our armed citizen is to the rear of the bad guy,3 oclock to 9 oclock,,what is wrong with"I have to make this count" Draw,FIND THE SIGHTS,and hit the beer can.

If you want to tell me I would be all panicked..maybe.I have not been in a gunfight.
When I was in Alaska and had to kill the bear that had hurt my wife I found the sight,picturedd his spine inside his neck,and hit it.All quite calm and clear,IN THE MOMENT. After the bear was dead,then my emotions came on.

Different people react in different ways.

If your reality is about panicked spraying,please don't.

I'm thinking if your shots were 4 feet or higher above the deck,from a low place,your odds of hitting an innocent would be nil.

In any case,it is the bad guy shooting people who is responsible.If the swat team killed someone blowing the hole in the wall,it would be tragic,but the bad guy would still be responsible.

If a Police SWAT Teame or Delta force enters a terrorist situation with hostages,9 terrorists killed,123 people rescued,15 innocents killed,and likely 2 by friendly fire...I won't say its good,but its over.The team did their very best.
Debrief,critiue,learn,improve,sure.

But still we are grateful for the rescue.


I look at the armed citizen the same way.
 
Last edited:
Not certain if there is more to add to this thread but I came across this news article today of a lawfully armed citizen in a nightclub that stopped a mass shooter. This probably wont make the mainstream news because a good guy with a gun never does

http://www.wistv.com/story/32308903/deputies-man-opened-fire-wounded-several-at-nightclub

according to the article the shooter was firing into the crowd randomly and hit 3 people when the armed citizen returned fire as the shooter was firing on him.

the article doesn’t elaborate much except that the armed citizen had a CHL and will not be facing charges, I’m assuming there is no law against carrying in bars in his state. I'll be honest and admit this scenario doesn’t sound identical to Orlandos except that Orlando doesn’t allow carry in bars and an armed citizen can make a difference...
 
How many people might have been shot if this CHL holder hadn't acted?
Click to expand...

Between 0 and infinite.

That is to me the problem with these discussions. We cannot possibly know the answer to that one. Maybe the shooter had an epiphany and was done. Maybe the shooter intended to kill everyone there and then enter the city at large.
 
That is to me the problem with these discussions. We cannot possibly know the answer to that one.
Click to expand...


I disagree. The vast manority of cases where an armed citizen has engaged the shooter has stopped the criminal from taking further action. Statistically speaking we can say the answer is always at least one or more will die if no action is taken.
 
Statistically speaking we can say the answer is always at least one or more will die if no action is taken.
Click to expand...

We might argue that the number, on average, is greater than zero and be correct. Its not something you can really readily test. I would presume that at least some shooters stop eventually before being confronted with force thus you cannot know that case X actually saved lives. You can infer it but it is not a certainty.
 
When the shooter was unopposed casulities ran into the double digits.
When opposed by resistance the number has HISTORICALLY been in the single digits.

Those numbers mean that resistance SAVES lives.
 
An off-the-wall thought

I cannot help but wonder if half the 160-odd people in Pulse had been armed with single-shot handguns, what the outcome would have been.

So, what if, attached to the next high-capacity and/or detachable magazine ban/limit, included in the bill it was specified that single-shot handguns were specifically classified as NOT firearms?

Unrealistic, maybe, but kinda gets you thinking, eh?

Lost Sheep
 
When the shooter was unopposed casulities ran into the double digits.
When opposed by resistance the number has HISTORICALLY been in the single digits.
Click to expand...

Interesting consideration. I guess you would first have to break down the data into the mass shootings where the shooter actually intended to shoot as many people as possible from the mass shootings where the shooter only had a few people in mind. You see, most mass shootings are single digit mass shootings without opposition. So it would really depend on the type of mass shooting. It also needs to be understood that most mass shootings aren't going to be double digits in the first place. Take the shooting mentioned by TXAZ. There is no indication that the shooting was more than an altercation that got out of hand. There wasn't apparently double digits of people outside the club for the shooter to even shoot.

I know people have cited the Appalachian Law School shooting as evidence of armed CCW folks stopping a shooting. Aside from the fact that the CCW folks were law enforcement officers, they didn't stop the shooting. The shooting had stopped. The shooter was simply trying to flee when he was "stopped."

So blanket statements may be very misleading without taking into consideration the context of each situation.

Keep in mind that when shooters did meet opposition, the numbers were often still bad...

Shooter was opposed in Orlando - Double Digits
Shooter was opposed in Dallas - Double Digits
Shooter was opposed at Columbine - Double Digits
Shooter was opposed at UT - Double Digits

The issue isn't about just being opposed, but being often about being wounded or killed.
 
There is a huge difference between chosing fratricide vs. accidentally shooting the wrong person in a gunfight. Nobody here is condoning fratricide as a tactic to stop a shooter.
Click to expand...
Couldn't have said it better.

It'd be hard to keep from intervening if armed, when the bullets are flying and many are being shot. Combat vets know what I'm talking about...the guys who didn't fire back in an ambush...I wonder how they sleep now. Rod
 
If a march/community gathering is licensed by the Police, a concealed carry is not appropriate...too many bystanders in front of behind the CCW shooter.
 
If a march/community gathering is licensed by the Police, a concealed carry is not appropriate...too many bystanders in front of behind the CCW shooter.
Click to expand...

I could not disagree more. To deny my right to concealed carry does not make the gathering safer. The implication is I am unsafe in a crowd. It then follows I really shouldn't carry at all. I reject the premise.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top