IMHO in comes down to an active vs a passive mentality. I wonder why nobody started throwing things, chairs, bottles, whatever. In the Army we were taught to use small arms against tanks,-you won't stop them but you will throw their aim off, force them to button up, take evasive action, etc. I took some martial arts classes, a Jeet Kune Do school, in the Phillippine Arts they emphasize that ANYTHING can be used as a weapon. On Okinawa where the Japanese forbade the locals to have weapons they developed techniques using farm implements.
Concealed Handguns vs Orlando terrorism last night
- Thread starter TXAZ
- Start date
Double Naught Spy
New member
She fought smart. Working as armed security for the church, heard shots outside. She took a position of cover/concealment where she laid in wait for him to approach in the well lit great hallway of the church. She chose when to show herself and had the drop on him. She then identified herself as a police officer (which she had been) and ordered the gunman to disarm and when he failed to comply opened up on him.
She did well, but also was in a completely different sort of situation than the Pulse club. She basically had a single target in an open field of fire with little concern of hitting bystanders. The church was on alert because of previous shootings and it was anticipated that it would be singular gunman. She also had the benefit of knowing that there was at least one other armed guard still at the church.
The OP directed this not become a thread about drunks and guns.I stopped talking about that.Can you?
I clearly stated in previous posts that for my own behavior,which is the only behavior I can control,I make the responsible choice.I can go into a bar to have a beer unarmed,or I can go in to drink non-alchohol.
I clearly do not advocate mixing alchohol and guns.
Please copy and paste a quote if I have.
A low level thug took out Jesse James by sucker shooting James in the head .
It does not take Jerry Miculek.If the bad guy shooter is focused on slaughtering people
One average SOBER person MIGHT be able to find opportunity to find his/her sights then shoot the bad guy in the back.
As far as crowds and having a perfect shot,I'll say this.If you see that a man with a rifle is shooting at me,or the person beside me,If you have a chance to take a shot and you see me in the background,pull the trigger till he drops.
I'll take the chance.His rifle is a sure thing to kill me.Ideally,your ammo will expend most of its energy inside the bad guy.It might not hurt me bad.I'd rather be hit with your handgun than his rifle.
If you kill me while stopping him,Oh well.I had a bad day.Good for you for stopping him from killing someone else.
If you don't succeed,oh well.We were already having a very bad day.
Its not about me being a wannabe hero.Lets say I was unarmed because I was having a beer.
Lets say you had no effect,because you took your CCW and ran out the back door.
Lets say Myrtle,the 59 year old semi retired truck driver pulled out her Shield and dumped 5 rounds in his back and only hit me once.
Good for Myrtle.God bless dangerous Women.She's my hero.
I know.It might not have worked.You'd rather we just cried and died?
One ordinary ,non special,non Rambo sober armed person MAY have had a chance....20%? 30 %???? Who knows.30% chance to get to 15 feet behind the killer,put 3 out of 5 rounds in his back,the CCW person gets shot and killed.Our bad guy caves 10 seconds later during a mag change.
Maybe,just MAYBE our CCW person saves 25 of the 49 lives.
Its not good,but its better.
I clearly stated in previous posts that for my own behavior,which is the only behavior I can control,I make the responsible choice.I can go into a bar to have a beer unarmed,or I can go in to drink non-alchohol.
I clearly do not advocate mixing alchohol and guns.
Please copy and paste a quote if I have.
A low level thug took out Jesse James by sucker shooting James in the head .
It does not take Jerry Miculek.If the bad guy shooter is focused on slaughtering people
One average SOBER person MIGHT be able to find opportunity to find his/her sights then shoot the bad guy in the back.
As far as crowds and having a perfect shot,I'll say this.If you see that a man with a rifle is shooting at me,or the person beside me,If you have a chance to take a shot and you see me in the background,pull the trigger till he drops.
I'll take the chance.His rifle is a sure thing to kill me.Ideally,your ammo will expend most of its energy inside the bad guy.It might not hurt me bad.I'd rather be hit with your handgun than his rifle.
If you kill me while stopping him,Oh well.I had a bad day.Good for you for stopping him from killing someone else.
If you don't succeed,oh well.We were already having a very bad day.
Its not about me being a wannabe hero.Lets say I was unarmed because I was having a beer.
Lets say you had no effect,because you took your CCW and ran out the back door.
Lets say Myrtle,the 59 year old semi retired truck driver pulled out her Shield and dumped 5 rounds in his back and only hit me once.
Good for Myrtle.God bless dangerous Women.She's my hero.
I know.It might not have worked.You'd rather we just cried and died?
One ordinary ,non special,non Rambo sober armed person MAY have had a chance....20%? 30 %???? Who knows.30% chance to get to 15 feet behind the killer,put 3 out of 5 rounds in his back,the CCW person gets shot and killed.Our bad guy caves 10 seconds later during a mag change.
Maybe,just MAYBE our CCW person saves 25 of the 49 lives.
Its not good,but its better.
Last edited:
A concealed carrier COULD have made a difference, had they been in the right place, at the right time, and made the right decisions. The question of whether they WOULD have made a difference is one we'll never be able to answer.
I've talked about this sort of thing before but I'll add one last thought: The shooter is prepared to do two things; murder people and die. Because of that he will probably function more efficiently than if he was concerned about preservation of anybody's life, including his own. If you choose to engage him instead of flee, barring some miracle there are only two outcomes, you are going to win or you are going to die.
So if you choose to engage (and it's something you may want to think out before hand in today's day and age), realize you are all in. Don't hesitate, don't back down, fight the adrenaline, get angry, get aggressive, find your sights, squeeze the trigger, and put as many hits on target as fast as you possibly can.
I've talked about this sort of thing before but I'll add one last thought: The shooter is prepared to do two things; murder people and die. Because of that he will probably function more efficiently than if he was concerned about preservation of anybody's life, including his own. If you choose to engage him instead of flee, barring some miracle there are only two outcomes, you are going to win or you are going to die.
So if you choose to engage (and it's something you may want to think out before hand in today's day and age), realize you are all in. Don't hesitate, don't back down, fight the adrenaline, get angry, get aggressive, find your sights, squeeze the trigger, and put as many hits on target as fast as you possibly can.
I just cant think of any reason a CCW could not make a difference, worst case scenario he gets killed when he was going to be killed anyways giving time for one other person to escape.
if I roll with the argument, the odds are too small for a CCW to make any difference, then now what? What does that mean? To me that kind of response means we shouldn’t be carrying in public at all, anywhere, only the cops are qualified to handle such situations.
If I roll with the argument, most all of CHL holders are untrained, then now what? What does that mean? To me that kind of response means we shouldn’t be carrying in public at all, anywhere....
I disagree with that those arguments whole heartedly. The odds against the good guy in any shooting scenario are the same, terrible. Yet good guys do prevail. I took an advanced defensive handgun class this spring and the class was booked months in advance it was a full house, Most people were naturals and did really well and most all qualified the same course of fire our state police use. The idea that the public doesn’t have the skills is an opinion.
The only thing I will concede to is that the odds are against the lawful CCW, the probability is low. The idea that a CCW cannot make a difference in a mass shooting is like saying there is no such thing as a good guy with a gun.
if I roll with the argument, the odds are too small for a CCW to make any difference, then now what? What does that mean? To me that kind of response means we shouldn’t be carrying in public at all, anywhere, only the cops are qualified to handle such situations.
If I roll with the argument, most all of CHL holders are untrained, then now what? What does that mean? To me that kind of response means we shouldn’t be carrying in public at all, anywhere....
I disagree with that those arguments whole heartedly. The odds against the good guy in any shooting scenario are the same, terrible. Yet good guys do prevail. I took an advanced defensive handgun class this spring and the class was booked months in advance it was a full house, Most people were naturals and did really well and most all qualified the same course of fire our state police use. The idea that the public doesn’t have the skills is an opinion.
The only thing I will concede to is that the odds are against the lawful CCW, the probability is low. The idea that a CCW cannot make a difference in a mass shooting is like saying there is no such thing as a good guy with a gun.
Absolutely it is, and that's the main point I'm trying to emphasize. A CCW holder engaging in this situation would result in a gunfight. This isn't one of the surveillance videos we've seen of the clerk behind the counter pulling a gun on the armed robbers, who fire a few rounds back but are mostly concerned with fleeing. This isn't a middle of the night burglary where the homeowner confronts the suspect and holds him at gunpoint until the police arrive. This is a no holds barred fight that will only end when somebody stops moving. You pulling your gun out, shooting at, or even hitting the mass shooter is probably not going to have the same effect it would have on 99.99% of the population. He's ready to kill, he's ready to be fought, he's ready for pain, he's ready to die. There should be no announcements, no commands, nothing. If his rifle jams and he throws it down, don't even give him the benefit of the doubt because history has shown us he will more than likely have a pistol as well. Just deal with him hard and fast. Any half-hearted attempt to deal with the situation will almost certainly result in the CCW holders death, as we saw in the Las Vegas Walmart shooting.
This is a false dichotomy. I carry a pistol to give me one more level of response in case fleeing fails. I'm prepared to use it to defend me or mine. The amount of crap I put up with regarding responsible gun ownership by society as a whole tells me that society as a whole doesn't want or need my intervention with a firearm.
1) Avoid such situations entirely (I'm not going to be in a nightclub)
2) Flee (If a public shooting starts outside of the very few places I have a moral obligation to defend I am leaving if safely possible)
3) Fight (other reasonable options being exhausted this is the option selected)
Nowhere in there do you see cower in a corner and beg. I may not win if forced to fight but I will be killed attempting to win.
Step one: AVOID situations likely to escalate to or present deadly conflict. Many of us noting that we would have fled from this situation if given the opportunity to do so safely would have never been in this situation in the first place. I don't go into large crowds let alone large crowds where alcohol consumption is a primary activity.
The main theme I've seen throughout this thread is people who would get out if they could but given the choice of shoot and die or just die they would shoot if they were carrying. If you don't agree that more guns in the room might make a difference, that's one thing but this is now two sarcastic remarks about people who don't feel the same way.
Double Naught Spy
New member
Let's get this straight. Few people carry. While a notable percentage of people (<10% in most states) will get carry licenses, 20% or less of those will carry regularly.
Why we carry is for self defense, not for bravado. Most people who do regularly carry, the few that they are, mostly are not going to have the attitude that they are willing to die to save a room full of strangers. There is nothing wrong with this concept. Of that room full of strangers, most or all of them had the same chances to carry as I did. If they chose to not have a firearm for self defense, it is not my responsibility and liability to see that they are defended by one. My license did not come with a super hero costume, unlimited liability funding, or a get out of jail free card. That is reality.
Now, if I, or any other carrier opts to save another person, that is our choice, NOT our obligation to society. That is also a reality.
Doc Holliday 1950
New member
I was not there and I do not hang out in bars at 2am
So, to be honest, I seriously doubt that my
Having a concealed weopon would have stopped this
Guy.
So, to be honest, I seriously doubt that my
Having a concealed weopon would have stopped this
Guy.