Concealed Handguns vs Orlando terrorism last night

[ms6852]

In answering the OP's question I really do not think that more people with CCW would have made a difference, and this is why as I see it. First, as a CCW carrier you should not be in an establishment like a night club with a gun, as it is against the law. Secondly, having the license to carry does not make you or give you the freedom to take the law into your own hands as a police officer. I like to believe that all CCW carriers are honest and law abiding citizens and would not violate the law by carrying in such an establishment.

Sadly enough with all the technology that is to make our lives better, also makes us very complacent and situational awareness is out the window because a large majority have their faces buried in the smart phones, and in a club with loud music blaring , bright lights blinding you, and basically chaos going on is the norm, it is more difficult to realize what is happening until the chaos elevates into mass hysteria and a mass stampede occurs. By that time casualties have occurred.

 

[Slamfire]

With a rampage killer, even if you are carrying a concealed weapon, I think the best survival strategy is to get out of there as fast as you possibly can without confronting the rampage killer. Only when you cannot escape and are confronted by the rampage killer, then and only then, use whatever firearm you have to try to save your life. The news reports say this rampage killer had a rifle and a guy with a rifle has a much higher hit probability and at a greater range than you will have with a small concealed handgun.

So, would have a concealed carry permit made a difference? I don't know and we won't know.

 

[buck460XVR]

So, would have a concealed carry permit made a difference? I don't know and we won't know.

......exactly. Some of the reports I heard claimed that many of the patrons thought the gunshots at first, were part of the show. In my state, one can carry concealed into a bar/tavern, but cannot consume alcohol. I've done it many a time. One needs to realize that if 50 people were killed and another 50+ wounded, that there had to be at least ten times that many in the building, packed like sardines. This is one reason the shooter hit so many targets. No room between or behind folks, almost impossible to completely miss and multiple hits with the same shot highly possible. This means shooting back would have the same consequences.

The shooter was confronted and exchanged shots before he entered the bar by an armed and experienced guard(off duty cop). The reason the cops held of for three hours before storming the bar to free the hostages was because of fear of casualties from friendly fire.

 

[motorhead0922]

Florida law states:

(12)(a) A license issued under this section does not authorize any person to openly carry a handgun or carry a concealed weapon or firearm into:
12. Any portion of an establishment licensed to dispense alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises, which portion of the establishment is primarily devoted to such purpose;

So, it is possible, although it seems unlikely, that portions of the nightclub were not off limits to CCW under law. The nightclub may very well had their own prohibition. Does anyone have definitive knowledge of the policy at Pulse?

That said, it could not possibly have gone any worse if a person with a CCW and a firearm had engaged the shooter. Worse than 50 dead? No way.

 

[Sharkbite]

Liquor and legalities aside...guns in the hands of competent CCW holders are the only answer to these type events. If you think it cant be done, ask Jeanne Assam.

 

[bedbugbilly]

Would it have made a difference? We'll never know but I highly doubt it.

I am permitted in MI and AZ. In MI, I can't legally carry in to an establishment whose primary purpose is the selling of alcohol - which would have included a "club" like this.

In AZ, I can legally carry in to an establishment that sells alcohol BUT, I cannot consume alcohol.

So here is the catch . . . if a citizen is "law abiding" . . . they probably would not have been armed in that establishment (sorry - I don't know Florida's laws as far as CC). So we go back to the same old argument again . . . the "left" wants to "ban" and are assuming that it wills top such things as this . . . again forcing their agenda on "law abiding citizens" and common sense tells you that "criminals" or "terrorists" are not going to follow the law . . . .

I don't care "where" the shootings were done . . . there was a tremendous loss of life that was unnecessary and I certainly pray for those lost, wounded and their families . . . they were all "human beings" who didn't deserve any of this. As a Christian Minister, I detest violence such as this as we all should regardless of our beliefs.

What bothers me the most though, is the "slant" being put on this. If you listened to our "fearless leader's" speech . . . the slant was not what it was . . . an act of radical terrorism . . . plain and simple. He and the "anti's" will be putting the slant of this shooting as a "hate crime". Really? Let's stop with all the "political correctness" and start having a "backbone" for once . . and admit that these acts of terrorism are what they are . . and unfortunately, this will not be the last of them. It has nothing to do with "guns" or "assault weapons". Whatever they might try to pass as far as gun restrictions as a result of such attacks will have little effect on these attacks as those making them will have no regard for them. Unfortunately, there are those in power who wish to invite the "fox into the henhouse" . . . and refuse to give a clear and concise answer to those that commit such crimes against humanity.

Would somebody legally carrying have made a difference? We'll never know. But I certainly hope that those with common sense will make the right decision when they vote and remove and throw out pf pffoce those elected officials who want to stomp on the Constitution and who refuse to stand up for the foundations and beliefs on which our country was founded.

 

[Koda94]

Liquor and legalities aside...guns in the hands of competent CCW holders are the only answer to these type events. If you think it cant be done, ask Jeanne Assam.

I agree with this, the idea that CCW holders could not competently intervene reeks of gun control logic. There are plenty of CCW holders that are very competent with their firearms and many are taking advanced defensive firearm classes, the trend is increasing and the classes are full and booked months in advance. My hunch is that those that feel CCW holders could not competently intervene to take an advanced defensive handgun class.


The legality of guns in bars and nightclubs is another gun control logic. Yes, I know some states prohibit it... but they absolutely should not. Its just another "gun free" zone and look at the results. There is no reason why a person who is a designated driver or otherwise isn’t drinking could not also be a designated carrier or otherwise just carry... but when gun control laws are passed its the law abiding that get their options removed, not the psychos...

 

[K_Mac]

...the idea that CCW holders could not competently intervene reeks of gun control logic.

Nonsense. No one has said that a competent armed citizen could not have made a difference. What has been said is that it is unknown, and unlikely by some including me. Someone questioning whether a highly trained and committed citizen could have stopped this in the crowded and chaotic environment of a packed club is not anti-gun.

 

[TXAZ]

Good feedback, thanks.
There are so many intangibles and unpredictable factors that like an army battle plan, its' validity rapidly decreases with time. As noted above, a CHL holder might get a quick, clear shot at the bad guy, only to be shot by an officer or another CHL'er. Conversely in a locked or closed space, no 'other' guns means slaughter at the whim of the shooter. The variables and scenarios are effectively infinite. But there are some basic common themes and factors.


After a shooting late last year, I built a statistical model regarding CHL holders in the midst, and the answer was pretty eye-opening: It doesn’t take many CHL / CCW holders engaging terrorist to stop the killing.

The terrorist have little chance against a local gun club party or in many Texas suburbs (highest % CHL), but a field day in gun free cities / zones / states.

Assumptions:

Number at meeting / party / event: 100
Number of terrorist: 2
% CHL / CCW holders in crowd:

0%, 0.09% 4%, 15%&up
(Gun Free Zone, Cali average, suburban TX average, gun club party)

Willingness / ability of CHL holders to engage terrorist: 50%
Skill / accuracy of terrorist shooters: 10% (Kill shot %)
Skill / accuracy of CHL shooters: 10 % (Kill shot %)


With 0% CHL in a GUN FREE ZONEl, it’s a SLAUGHTER, no dead terrorist and ~ 85 deaths with unchallenged rounds fired.

With 0.09% CHL (California average) the results are identical to a Gun Free Zone, no dead terrorist, ~85 dead party-goers.

With 4% (suburban Texas average) CHL holders getting to 2 dead terrorist ends up with 5 party-goers statistically dead.

With 15+% CHL holders in the crowd (gun club party) killing 2 terrorist results in 2 party-goers likely dead.

This model could be a lot more precise but I expect similar order of magnitude results. It assumes terrorist each fire then each CHL fires, then repeat, assumes aimed not sprayed shots to get Kill shot %) The calculation stops when all terrorist are statistically are killed, then looks at how many party goers were killed.

Also note that the calvary (SWAT) isn’t likely to arrive until 45 minutes to an hour after the first shot is fired, as was reported in Orlando.

the anti's might not like the moniker, but the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun, be they patrol officer, SWAT or CHL holder.

 

[Koda94]

Nonsense. No one has said that a competent armed citizen could not have made a difference. What has been said is that it is unknown, and unlikely by some including me. Someone questioning whether a highly trained and committed citizen could have stopped this in the crowded and chaotic environment of a packed club is not anti-gun.

yes actually there are quite a few replies in this thread doubting if an armed citizen could make a difference. If that were the true then why should they be allowed to carry? there are any number of scenarios for self defense that are all unknown variables, this one is no different.

Those that are saying its unknown, are not responding to the OPs original question... if someone could make a difference. The answer is simply yes whether its by blind luck or hours of competent training.

 

[Model12Win]

I think in this PARTICULAR situation, it probably wouldn't have made much of a difference if there were a few CCW holders in the club. With everyone so close together, you would have to have been very close to the shooter to get a clear shot to dispatch him. Not unless a decent amount of people could have fired back would it have made much of a difference.

But, in a different setting were lines of fire would have been better and there were fewer people, I do think it would have made a difference. And certainly, I would MUCH rather have had a gun last night in that gay bar that to not have one.

But, I don't go to clubs anymore. I got all that out of my system when I lived in Europe.

 

[Deaf Smith]

There are several documented cases stopping nutjobs. Even a few school shootings.

So what's the problem?

If you can legally pack, pack. If you think YOU are Barney Fife, don't pack.

But most of us will and it most certainly can make a difference.

We do know one fact... no one packed and over 50 died.

Deaf

 

[DA/SA Fan]

This is the only true dilemma for CCW. There are far too many otherwise decent folks that might pull a gun to solve an argument when sufficiently drunk. It's not practical to straight up allow guns in bars. As much as I believe the 2nd should allow a citizen in good standing to carry a gun anywhere and in any manner, bars just don't work.

If a designated non-drinking driver were allowed to carry and if staff at the bar were armed I don't see how the devastation would have been as severe. IMO there is a high probability that someone would have taken him out while he was re-loading if not sooner if the guns were there.

 

[Koda94]

This is the only true dilemma for CCW. There are far too many otherwise decent folks that might pull a gun to solve an argument when sufficiently drunk. It's not practical to straight up allow guns in bars. As much as I believe the 2nd should allow a citizen in good standing to carry a gun anywhere and in any manner, bars just don't work.

If a designated non-drinking driver were allowed to carry and if staff at the bar were armed I don't see how the devastation would have been as severe. IMO there is a high probability that someone would have taken him out while he was re-loading if not sooner if the guns were there.

so which is it? You say they just don’t work, then you say there is a high probability that the Orlando shooter would have been stopped sooner...

I don’t know of any case where anyone was convicted of a drunken shoot. Here in Oregon its legal to carry in bars or clubs, I don’t know of any case. The closest was about last year there was a guy in Madras Oregon who got in an argument, went outside to his car and got his illegally owned gun and brought it inside the bar and shot the other person. I don’t see how it would have made a difference if it was against the law to carry in the bar...

Gun free zones do not work. Ever. No-where.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

I'm absolutely not saying any of the victims deserved this, but this is another example that nothing good happens at 2am in public. That I am "just sayin"

Plenty of good stuff happens at night, 2:00 am and otherwise.

Yes, it would have possibly made a difference. Because if you have any type of CCW permit you've had some type of training.

Not all CCW people have training and not all states require training.

And there is stats that if someone is armed when a mass shooting starts that more times than not the shooter is stopped before a lot of people are shot. And in most cases the shooter kills themselves before the police arrive.

Really? Where are these stats? You mean mass shooters like Charlie Whitman, Klebold and Harris, Matthew Murray, David Hernandez Arroyo, Sr., Farook and Malik, Aaron Alexis, Wade Michael Page, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, Sulejman Talovic, James Oliver Huberty, Dionisio Garza, and Michael Kenneth McLendon are several examples of folks who did NOT give upon meeting armed resistance. Add Omar Mateen to the list. None of these people killed themselves before the police arrived and all fought with the cops. Unfortunately, this belief people have that the gunmen are cowards and will commit suicide at the first sign of trouble is an exceptionally naive belief that while hopeful, is tactically very poor. Usually, suicides happen only after shooters have accomplished their goals or have come to realize that they have no other way out. Having no other way out frequently may come after first being engaged in a gun battle.

yes actually there are quite a few replies in this thread doubting if an armed citizen could make a difference. If that were the true then why should they be allowed to carry?

These two categories are not directly related. People can doubt a difference would be made in a mass shooting, but that should not mean that citizens should not be allowed to carry. People generally carry to protect themselves and their loved ones, not to be a first responder in a crisis. So as noted by some posters, if given a choice between shooting it out or escaping, many will choose to escape.

--------------

However, let's get this straight. There was an armed person (police officer) who was at the club working security. He and TWO other officers responded almost immediately and engaged the shooter.

Sunday, 2:02 a.m. ET: Shooting erupts at Pulse, a gay nightclub in the heart of Orlando, as some 320 people enjoy the club's "Latin flavor" event.

An officer working extra duty in full uniform at the club responds.
He and two officers nearby open fire on the shooter, and a gun battle ensues.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/12/us/orlando-shooting-timeline/

Did they influence the situation? Most assuredly, but they failed to stop the shooter. These were armed, professional, trained, law enforcement officers...and this is still the largest mass shooting to occur...at least on records, in the US.

 

[Sharkbite]

Did they influence the situation? Most assuredly, but they failed to stop the shooter.

From the sketchy news reports ive seen....they DID stop the shooting. The shooter retreated back into the club and barricaded himself with hostages at that point. No additional shots fired until SWAT made entry.

Had the shooter continued to shoot after the origional exchange of gunfire, it would have been handled differently and sooner then 4 hours.

Not having been there but having some experience in these events, i would lay odds that the shooter started shooting again and that is what prompted the SWAT entry.

So, the origional exchange of gunfire with the off dutyLEO/Security DID stop (or at least delay) any additional deaths. That gave LE a chance to get a team in place and prepare to make entry should it be necessary.....it was

Time will tell, but that my take. AGAIN, a good guy with a gun...there RIGHT NOW, is the best response. On duty....off duty....trained CCW holder, somebody take the fight to him!!!

 

[HiBC]

To directly answer the OP's question: No one can say.Sometimes,yes,an armed citizen will succeed.Jeanne Assam at the Colorado New Life Church,Colorado Springs,is an example.And,sometimes not..
There is a time lag before law enforcement can show up and be effective.During that time,people are dying.There is horror and chaos.
But it CAN happen that chaos provides opportunity.
Pretty much,nothing else BUT an armed citizen will stop a killer like this.
Whether the law abiding weapon holder is a good chance or a slim chance,He/She is the ONLY chance
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------As an aftermath of the Colorado movie theatre massacre,there was a lawsuit suggesting the theatre should have been more responsible for providing a safe environment.
As things are/were at the time,maybe that is a stretch.

However,I propose a new approach.

The 2nd Amendment gives me the means to be responsible for my own safety.
I can choose to carry,or not,and take my chances.

Now,whether it be a school,college campus,theatre,or other place that designates a gun free zone,they require that I abdicate the responsibility to be able to take care of myself.
It would then follow that they assume the responsibility for my safety.

If that can be established,I think the next shootings in a gun free zone would result in legal and civil action against those who declare gun free zones.

 

[45_auto]

There is a time lag before law enforcement can show up and be effective.During that time,people are dying.There is horror and chaos.
But it CAN happen that chaos provides opportunity.
Pretty much,nothing else BUT an armed citizen will stop a killer like this.

What time lag? There was a uniformed cop working a detail at the club, and a couple of more nearby! Why do you believe that an armed citizen could have stopped the shooter when the three cops on the scene couldn't?

My experience has been that even the worst cops are MUCH better trained than 99.999% of armed citizens.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/12/us/orlando-shooting-timeline/

Sunday, 2:02 a.m. ET: Shooting erupts at Pulse, a gay nightclub in the heart of Orlando, as some 320 people enjoy the club's "Latin flavor" event.

An officer working extra duty in full uniform at the club responds.
He and two officers nearby open fire on the shooter, and a gun battle ensues.
The shooter goes inside the club, where a hostage situation develops

 

[Double Naught Spy]

From the sketchy news reports ive seen....they DID stop the shooting. The shooter retreated back into the club and barricaded himself with hostages at that point. No additional shots fired until SWAT made entry.

A cop was on scene and working security. You are saying that the cops kept Mateen from fleeing AFTER he shot and killed all those people? What was the cop on scene doing during the whole shooting...waiting for Mateen to leave the club and arrest him outside?

The cops on scene may have had some influence, but to say they stopped the shooter such that no shots were fired until SWAT made entry is somewhat wishful.

Mateen exchanged shots with the cop working security for the club and getting past that cop, proceeded INTO the club where he shot over 100 people, killing 50.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-orlando-nightclub-police-20160612-snap-story.html

At 2:02 a.m. on a muggy night in central Florida, a gunman traded shots with an off-duty police officer, slipped into a nightclub with a rifle and killed at least 50 people in the most lethal mass shooting in U.S. history.

--------------------

However,I propose a new approach.

The 2nd Amendment gives me the means to be responsible for my own safety.
I can choose to carry,or not,and take my chances.

Now,whether it be a school,college campus,theatre,or other place that designates a gun free zone,they require that I abdicate the responsibility to be able to take care of myself.
It would then follow that they assume the responsibility for my safety.

If that can be established,I think the next shootings in a gun free zone would result in legal and civil action against those who declare gun free zones.

That is just it, and this is a conversation had here numerous times, it cannot be established that businesses or government entities take responsibility for your safety against illegal acts beyond "reasonable" means. After all, you are there voluntarily. More over in this case, this club had an armed law enforcement officer who was working security...a cop on site. How much more reasonable is that?

So if the business is responsible and does allow you to carry a gun, the business would also be responsible if you negligently/accidentally shoot somebody because they allowed you to carry a gun.

However, if you have the deep pockets to fund the legal process to try to go after this angle, go for it.

 

[Koda94]

I think its interesting when we talk about an armed citizens many cast doubt based on the too many unknowns, but when we talk about what the armed security it was like we know every possibility was extingquished.