As many have stated good points. Lets look at what we know now, 1 LE in uniform was working as security and 2 other officers responded engaged in gun fire and failed to stop the shooter. Only way I see from what is being reported that a CCW could have stopped the shooter is if he/she was one of the hostages in the bathroom and that also is an unknown. With too many unknowns and being there was NOT a CCW holder in the club again from what we know we'll never know if a CCW could have made a difference. Its all opinions
Concealed Handguns vs Orlando terrorism last night
- Thread starter TXAZ
- Start date
I am yet another who wasn't there and is only making educated guesses, but that the BG was able to gain entrance to the club past armed security who apparently attempted to resist him emphasizes to me how much of a mismatch it is to use a handgun to take on a person armed with a modern rifle.
No matter how prepared we are or think ourselves to be, good guys don't always win in real life. I am a Floridian - I actually live between the shooter's home and Orlando - and I know the laws, I support every aspect of 2A rights, and even in that situation I would rather be armed than unarmed, but concealed carry is not a panacea. It would have been entirely possible, and perhaps likely if the shooter was skilled, that a concealed carrier in that club on that night, even if it were legal, would have been just another victim.
No matter how prepared we are or think ourselves to be, good guys don't always win in real life. I am a Floridian - I actually live between the shooter's home and Orlando - and I know the laws, I support every aspect of 2A rights, and even in that situation I would rather be armed than unarmed, but concealed carry is not a panacea. It would have been entirely possible, and perhaps likely if the shooter was skilled, that a concealed carrier in that club on that night, even if it were legal, would have been just another victim.
Double Naught Spy
New member
The point is that every situation is different. Gunmen don't always turn turtle with opposition. Sometimes guys with guns don't manage to stop things very quickly.
Apparently 100 folks or so we're shot after the first gun battle with the good guys.
I was asked by one of my friends if I could have stopped it. My answer was simple "no." Do I think others could have? Maybe. But this was a "worst case" scenario from what little I know - large crowds, uneven lighting, severe sensory overload... Of course being far towards the introverted side of the scale I explained to them the reason would simply be I would not have been there.
Last edited:
OldMarksman
Staff
"Nearby" doesn't cut it. Where was the one on duty?
The uniform either warns a perp to wait until the officer is looking the other way, or makes the officer a first target.
IF a person not in uniform is armed, unnoticed, and in the right place at the right time, he or she has a chance to end the carnage.
Very simple indeed.
Maybe things have changed since I was a young partyer. or maybe CCWs are just not carrying when they drink but I've known and seen WAY too many people who get really stupid when they get drunk. If you read what I said you know I am in no way condoning gun free zones anywhere. Just saying that even if I trust most of the people I have known there are a large percentage who I know would be an incident if they were carrying and drunk. I'm glad that in your state the type I'm worried about either self limit or just aren't the type to have a CCW in the first place.
OldMarksman
Staff
Are you serious?
I suppose that a uniformed officer might remain unnoticed.
A stretch, I think.
If not, how long do you think he would last? Remember, he will be reacting to violent aggression.
And just maybe, an unarmed person might be able to stop the shooter.
Also a stretch, I'm afraid. A lot easier for one who is armed.
In February 2008, an armed citizen entered the Kirkwood, MO, city hall, a gun free zone, with mayhem in mind.
The first person he shot was the uniformed policeman at the door.
He then shot several other peoples--after walking right past an official in my gun club, and paying no attention to him.
Had the official been armed, he could have put a bullet in the murderer's ear.
Un-noticed, right place, right time---but unarmed.
Double Naught Spy
New member
He was working security at the club and engaged the shooter.
Obviously, this is a hugely complex situation with limited visibility (low light dance club situation), multiple rooms, literally hundreds of people packed into the club. Total square footage of the building is about 4853 sq ft, plus the patio (based on Orange County records search) of which 4499 is "living space" and reports are that there were 200-300 in the building at the time.
While a DJ is reported to have stopped the music during the commotion, thinking that somebody had set off fireworks in the building, no reports are out that anybody brought up the house lights or anything else to help alleviate confusion. In fact, reports are that once the shooting started there was considerable confusion amongst the patrons.
Sure, it only takes one armed, level-head, clear-headed CCW with really good situational awareness and trigger skills to comprehend an extremely complex situation, determine friend from foe in low light with hundreds of moving, screaming people in a confined area of multiple rooms, identify, target, and stop the threat(s) without shooting a bystander and hopefully not getting shot by another CCW or clobbered with an improvised weapon (ala Loughner) or shot by the cops at the time.
It can be done - no doubt about it. The likelihood of it being done is a whole other matter.
old_marksman said:
You think some drunk (and I would be extremely surprised if drinking were the only mind-altering activity going on) shooting at the gunman would be more likely to remain unnoticed? In both my military and civilian law enforcement experience, I found that someone shooting at me got my attention MUCH quicker than whatever clothing they were wearing.
old_marksman said:
I would guess that the cop would last MUCH longer than 99.99% of civilian handgun carriers reacting to violent aggression.
old_marksman said:
You really think he would have walked right past your gun club official, paying no attention to him, if your gun club official had pulled out a gun or been actually shooting at him?
old_marksman said:
Do you assume that the good guy only needs one shot and never misses in all your scenarios?
Has the performance of your gun club official ever been evaluated while he was inebriated (Orlando shooting happened in a club) and threatened with deadly force? My experience has been that even putting the pressure of something as benign as Simunitions on someone for the first time seems to cause them to lose about 90% of their shooting ability.
I'm sure you're correct. The perfect person in the perfect place at the perfect time could have stopped the gunman. But arming a bunch of drunks in a nightclub in the hope that one will be in that perfect situation if needed seems to be a bit of a stretch.
Last edited:
OldMarksman
Staff
Doesn't really matter very much, does it , after he has scored some hits.
I don't know why. And remember, the uniform makes the officer a target.
City official at the time, in my club.
No. A shot directly into the ear, or wherever else he was shot in the head at point-blank range, would likely have interrupted his walk.
The man was a tad preoccupied with getting close to the mayor so he could shoot him.
The unarmed city official was there, and he is well trained.
Double Naught Spy
New member
I think the answer is YES...
I am sure Mark Wilson felt the same way and certainly Byron Wilson did. Mark was killed, of course, after shooting David Hernandez Arroyo, Sr., and Arroyo, turned his attention on Mark, downed him, and then delivered a coupe de grace.
Byron tried to stop Dionisio Garza III. Garza managed to shoot Byron 3 times, shattering both shins and hitting him in the shoulder.
Neither Mark or Byron were in uniforms. They weren't cops. Just good Sams trying to save the world against bad guys who were trying to kill people.
I know that it sounds good to say that a CCW is just going to draw his/her gun and shoot the bad guy and it will all be over, but strangely that isn't the norm for reality. In fact, when mass shooters are stopped by non-LEOs, they are most often stopped by folks via tackling and/or the use of improvised weapons, not firearms.
No, that was not the first person he shot. That was the second person he shot.
Interesting event. The cop that was initially shot was not shot in a gun-free zone. Sgt. William Biggs was shot in the parking lot across the street from city hall while running an errand to get some food. So Biggs wasn't at the door. Then the shooter walked inside, shot another officer before going at the city council.
http://www.odmp.org/officer/19196-sergeant-william-king-biggs-jr
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/09/us/09missouri.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirkwood_City_Council_shooting
Of course, the city hall shooting was a completely different sort of situation with hundreds fewer people being involved, well lit facility, etc.
OldMarksman
Staff
First person after having entered the city hall.
DA/SA Fan said:
I absolutely agree if a person is drunk they shouldn’t be carrying, it isn’t about trusting someone to be able to handle their liquor its about not carrying at all if your going out drinking. Thats a personal choice that should be made not a law so that others can legally exercise their rights responsibly and still be with friends in all venues. I didn’t mean to imply that you condone gun free zones, my apologies there, I'm just debating the merits of guns in bars as not having any effect on crime but does prevent others from being able to exercise their right... responsibly of course.
Koda94 drinking impairs judgement. You want to carry a gun while partying do it at home. You have no right to drive a car, fly a plane, practice medicine, law or any other activity that requires sound judgment under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Having a drink with a meal at a restaurant is not the same thing as going drinking at bar or club. I think that in a large public drinking venue the management has a responsibility to provide reasonable security. I also think they have the right to decide if they will allow concealed weapons on their property, and you have the right to take your business elsewhere if you choose.
What reasonable security is I haven't a clue in a world gone a little mad.
What reasonable security is I haven't a clue in a world gone a little mad.
pyes, you are wrong. What I've been saying all along is that laws that prohibit CCW in places that serve alcohol have done nothing to prevent violence and only affects the right of a responsible armed citizen who either doesn’t drink or acts as designated driver for the night. Earlier I was using this as a position to argue the idea that an armed citizen could make a difference in a shooting event such as Orlando, however low the odds.K_Mac said:
Keep in mind I’m in Oregon where we have no law against CCW in bars or liquor stores so I see how much its a non-issue. I cant recall any shooting events ever, at least not where the suspect wasn’t already a prohibited person but I do recall at least one maybe 2 bar incidents where a legally armed patron stopped a shooting in a bar, true story...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/14/portland-strip-club-shoot_n_4594732.html
Across the river in Wa. its against the law to carry in bars and on the rare occasion I find myself over there its a real pain to arm/disarm while not letting anyone know just because your group chooses a place that serves. Depending on where you go Vancouver Wa. isn’t exactly the place you want to hang out defensless and I can tell you their law hasn’t had any impact on "gun violence" around bars
FWIW, I'd be ok with some CCW law like the less than .08 BAC to drive, but I wont vote for any gun free zone law ever these GFZ's are getting people killed.