Concealed Handguns vs Orlando terrorism last night

how many people were in the club, maybe 300?

What percentage of the population owns guns and or has a CHL... roughly 10%? that’s 30 people who potentially could have made a choice to be a designated carrier. If 10% of those were the type (like many here) to always carry, there would have been at least 2 lawfully armed citizens in the club that night.

Not possible with Floridas law...

Not everyone in a club or bar gets trashed drunk, really.
 
Guv noted
How about Garland Texas were the cop with the 45cl Glock took out the 2 rifle toting bad guys? The guy with the pistol did pretty good on that day.
Click to expand...
We'll give him his due as the front man, but the Garland SWAT team with 4 snipers had a bit of a high-cover role in taking down the two incredibly stupid guys.
 
I have never understood the gross generalities of match two different platforms for a fight (pistol vs. rifle in this case) and then proclaiming the odds to not be in favor of the pistol. None of the interior distances of the Pulse Club were over ~20 yards, well within the effective fighting range of pistols and chances are if you were there with a gun that you would not be at the extremes of distance from the shooter.
Click to expand...


Distance really has nothing to do with where I was coming from with this, and yes the LEO in Texas DID do as stated. Where I am coming from is this.

Normal carry ammo for a pistol are HP and are of a much lower velocity than a rifle round. We, as CCW types, put thought into what ammo is in our weapons we carry. We do this for a reason. Why would a person bent on killing not put the same thought into the ammo in rifle?

Ok so you have a low velocity HP pistol round that is not exactly barrier blind up against a rifle round that, if chosen well is much less likely to be ineffective against light cover. Ok, I know we are talking 556 and not 308 so I don't need that lecture. You have how many rounds in your carry? I have 17, the rifleman will have at least 30 if not 40. It seems in reading that many CCW are closer to 8. Ok, wait for reload, yeah yeah, blah blah.

When the caliber talks go around ad nauseam I think the one take away is that a pistol round is not necessarily an instant show stopper particularly in a wounding shot. I think about any of the 'experts' that get name dropped in these discussions would say a rifle round is far superior to a pistol round in terminal performance.

If rifles were only for distance I think LEOs would not be using them when door kicking. Pistols are easier to carry and wield in close quarters than a rifle.
 
Maybe it is time that we, those who advocate for gun rights, start discussing another option in regards to legal concealed carry: a tiered concealed license system.
Click to expand...

Before we ever advocate any additional barriers, requirements, complications, or legal strata between people and the right--regardless of intention--we should stop to ask if it really helps us, furthers the right, or actually makes anyone safer. We should look to our own arguments in favor of the actual right and look to places where this right goes largely unimpeded, such as Vermont. (In Vermont, you can carry almost anywhere and all you need to carry, concealed or otherwise, is to be sixteen or older.) It turns out that the best and safest level of government regulation of our right is none.

I know we all may have different political or social ideas that are not to be discussed here on TFL but what unites us here is support for this right: the right to keep and bear arms. There have been far too many cases in the past of us working against each other on that right, supporting a condition here or a compromise there. For not only us but our children and grand children, we must all stand together without compromise against any and all new gun control of any kind.

This is especially important not only in the face of such a horrible tragedy as this recent act of terrorism but also against all those who would twist it to their advantage in the emotionally charged assault on our rights.
 
Distance really has nothing to do with where I was coming from with this, and yes the LEO in Texas DID do as stated. Where I am coming from is this...
Click to expand...

Okay, so you are talking about a siege/barricaded situation about firing against people behind cover in some sort entrenched gun fight and not really the quick exchange between a gunman moving through a club and shooting people and a CCW person. Sure, I would pick a rifle as well.

As for the reference to what the cops do, yeah, SWAT teams often go with carbines or SBRs when assaulted structures to hunt down people who are barricaded inside...not exactly the self defense situation that was going on during the slaughter at Pulse.

For more SD situations, the show stopper tends to be who can put rounds on target, not the size of the guns being fired.

how many people were in the club, maybe 300?

What percentage of the population owns guns and or has a CHL... roughly 10%? that’s 30 people who potentially could have made a choice to be a designated carrier. If 10% of those were the type (like many here) to always carry, there would have been at least 2 lawfully armed citizens in the club that night.

Not possible with Floridas law...

Not everyone in a club or bar gets trashed drunk, really.
Click to expand...

Okay and of those 2 lawfully armed citizens that could have been in the club that night, maybe one or both were trashed or one or both considered themselves responsible and didn't carry because they knew they would be drinking. OR, maybe they just ran out when they had the opportunity. Chances are they didn't go to the range regularly, hadn't been to Thunder Ranch, Gunsite, or any other school, etc. ...if we are playing the odds here.

Oh wait, there was a person there with a gun and he wasn't drinking. He even exchanged shots with the bad guy, but the shooting continued.
 
Double Naught Spy said:
Okay and of those 2 lawfully armed citizens that could have been in the club that night, maybe one or both were trashed or one or both considered themselves responsible and didn't carry because they knew they would be drinking. OR, maybe they just ran out when they had the opportunity. Chances are they didn't go to the range regularly, hadn't been to Thunder Ranch, Gunsite, or any other school, etc. ...if we are playing the odds here.

Oh wait, there was a person there with a gun and he wasn't drinking. He even exchanged shots with the bad guy, but the shooting continued.
Click to expand...

(actually my math was off I meant to say at least 3.... regardless...) I think you missed my point completely about a CCW can make a difference. Its too bad you don’t think so, I’m wondering if you advocate for the right of citizens to carry at all? Actually chances are, the type of person that carries all the time is usually the one that has taken some advanced training....

and by the way, the person with the gun there that exchanged gunfire did stop the shooting. If that officer hadn’t engaged there would have been way more victims.
 
Last edited:
Studies where groups of people in rooms, where one person was armed with a simulation gun, showed in such scenarios that it worked very well when attackers burst in.

The attackers were too confused with everyone running in different directions to see the defending shooter in time.

Deaf
 
A professional has responsibilities and legal protections that a civilian does not
Click to expand...

Nowhere in the thread have I seen the LEGAL aftermath been disputed (LE vs. CCW carrier). Thats the only time those "Legal protections" matter.

Problem 1- SOLVE the problem. Only AFTER that, comes
Problem 2- Criminal liability
Problem 3- Civil liability

If you dont survive the attack. Prob 2&3 are pretty much irrelevant.
 
sharkbite said:
I have spent the better part of 3 decades carrying in hostile environments AND teaching both LE/Mil and cilvians. I do not see the avg LE as having even modest skills with his/her firearm.
Click to expand...

I agree with you 100%.

Unfortunately, the skills of the average CCW holder make the skills of the average cop look like Bill Jordan.
 
a tiered concealed license system.
Click to expand...
Check out New York's Bizantine carry laws to see how that's worked for politicians who's real purpose is to disarm the law-abiding public. And keep in mind, it varies by county and city! The devil's in the details...and we should keep in mind that the ultimate purpose of "gun control reform" is disarmament. The UK and Austrailia, Canada and many of the other western Democracies have gone down that path with draconian results.

Rod
 
Why? The uniformed cop sure didn't
Click to expand...

The obvious answer to that is the tactical one. The uniformed LEO at the front door was a known quantity. The shooter had done surveillance of the club and undoubtedly KNEW of the LEO's presence and approximate location.

The LEO was the FIRST target because of these facts. A CCW holder (or several:eek:) inside the building would have been unknown both in location and ability to rapidly identify them.

Th way to win fights (gun, knife, empty hands) is Speed, SURPRISE and violence of action.

If the shooter had entered and opened fire a CCW holder to the sides or rear of him could have ended that killing spree with a single round fired in 5-10seconds (even accounting for reaction time).

That equals a BUNCH of people still alive today instead of being buried.

This thread has had some disturbing posts in it. Im not saying its a great idea to take a handgun to a rifle fight. But, if thats what i have when it happens...I'll deal with it the best i can.

Does that mean i'll be unscathed? Maybe not. Does that mean no one else will be injured? Maybe not. Is my intervening BETTER then me just standing there to be shot? I think so.
 
The obvious answer to that is the tactical one. The uniformed LEO at the front door was a known quantity. The shooter had done surveillance of the club and undoubtedly KNEW of the LEO's presence and approximate location.

The LEO was the FIRST target because of these facts. A CCW holder (or several) inside the building would have been unknown both in location and ability to rapidly identify them.
Click to expand...

Well, not exactly. More update reports indicate that wasn't the case at all.

Officer Adam Gruler wasn't at the front door. He was outside apparently investigating underaged drinkers. He heard shots inside and ran inside to address the issue.
http://thefreethoughtproject.com/police-admit-officers-orlando-shooting/
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news...ando-shooting-inside-club-20160613-story.html
 
Double Naught...
Thanks for the clarification.

My basic premise stands. Uniformed and visible defenders are likely to be the first targeted AND stand a much reduced chance of surprising the shooter then a CCW holder who blends in with the crowd.
 
You can make that premise, but the example here doesn't hold. After all, the cop wasn't targeted. Mateen simply started shooting people and then Mateen was surprised by the cop. So Mateen was surprised by the uniformed cop working as security.

Cops were not targeted at Columbine by Klebold and Harris, not targeted at the Arapahoe school shooting, Reynolds High School in Oregon, Panama School Board meeting, and I will stop there. You can research the data yourself and determine just how often security (often off duty cops) are actually targeted. Security was at the Kirkwood City Council meeting and one workplace shooting (can't find it now) that I know of. From what I can tell is that security gets targeted first when the shooter needs to get past security. Otherwise, security is not targeted initially.

You can start here...
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/office...ctive-shooter-incidents-in-the-u.s.-2000-2013

You would think that it would make sense to target security first, but these people seem to have other objectives in mind for the most part.
 
This is one of the biggest fallacies it the shooting world. "He's a cop, so he can shoot BETTER then the armed civilian". What TOTAL B.S.
Click to expand...

The difference between law enforcement officers and civilians is that the officer is far more likely to have a lot of experience dealing with high stress situations whether they involve firearms or not. In a gunfight that stress inoculation counts for a lot.

Who can keep the most rounds in the ten ring means absolutely nothing in a gunfight. Many civilians I've shot with are very accurate and very slow.
 
Would prefer the option being armed over lying on a wet bathroom floor reciting "help me jesus". About as polite am likely to get on the subject.

Don't drink and don't go into nightclubs/bars. You can carry concealed into a bar here, if you don't drink and the bar owner doesn't post the front door.
 
Would prefer the option being armed over lying on a wet bathroom floor reciting "help me jesus". About as polite am likely to get on the subject.
Click to expand...

And THAT Lady's and Gentlemen describes my thoughts EXACTLY.

When SECONDS count...the Police are only MINUTES away. In the mean time its up to me to protect me and others around me (should i so choose)
 
Going up against an assailant armed with an AR with a handgun?

My preferred tactical position would be laying in wait on that aforementioned bathroom floor with my handgun trained on the door.

Listening to shots ringing out, knowing others are dying as I wait, would be hard on my conscience, but factoring in the variables and odds is part and parcel of having a firearm for defense.

Just a thought.

Lost Sheep
 
Would prefer the option being armed over lying on a wet bathroom floor reciting "help me jesus"...
Click to expand...

Folks, the bottom line is that we simply can't know what would have happened in this particular place if things were different. We also can't know what might happen in the future or what kind of horrors we might end up facing. Being armed simply means having an option. That option could end up being the most important option of your life. It could be your only other option and that option could save your life. That option could save a lot of lives. We can't know if it will. We just know that it could and that makes it a vastly better option than the one quoted above.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top