Reacting with your CCW

The OP has a valid point in a way. What would be the harm in more shooters learning more skills?
However, mandating this training, is not the answer. When I do carry (and its a lot less often than when I joined THR/TFL/etc) I don't consider myself the protector of everyone in my vicinity. I am prepared to defend my life, and that of my wife. If possible, I will expand that scope to others if I am capable.
 
To the point of friendly fire - yes, that can happen. It happens to police quite a bit. IIRC, something like one out of six undercover cops have had guns drawn on them by arriving officers. Some have been shot.

There is at least one report of a CCW type drawing his gun and trying to get into a mall where there was a shooting. His wife was in there but luckily the arriving cops figured it out and didn't nuke him.

There haven't been enough CCW types involved in rampages that we see friendly fire yet. It might happen.

As far as what to do - you can take the stance that you will join the fight that you can avoid for some moral duty. You can take the stance that if you don't have to fight, you can get out of Dodge. Old, old debate in the concealed carry world. Lots of posturing on this one and name calling.

However, if you do decide to enter the fight and screw up, that's life. We have had two screw ups - Tacoma Mall and Tyler, TX. First guy didn't shoot an got nailed. Second guy shot against body armor and wasn't wise and got killed. The Gifford's rampage guys used common sense.

If you enter the fight and kill an innocent or hurt somebody, gonna plead guilty if charged with some negligent injury crime or fight the civil suit? Or just take it because you deserve it. Not a hero then.

Training for intensive situations is more than just potting a rock or the square range. Different from shooting away the mugger.
 
Interesting thread. If I was in this situation by myself, I would probably run and seek cover. If the shooter directed his/her attention to me then I would have no choice but to draw and fire. If I was with my wife, I would shield her and GTFO, no looking back. To my understanding, if a CCW holder percieves a threat to their or others lives they can legally stop the threat.

I would imagine that if a person opened fire in a crowded place, everyone would scatter or get down. Most people aren't dumb enough to just run in circles when they are getting shot at, they will seek cover. As for being seen as the BG, well... that would suck.:eek:
 
If the robbers didn't have guns, and you had none either, what would you do? The actions here would give a strong indication on what to do next.

A cleaner situation the OP could have described would be if you are standing inline at the checkout, the person directly in front of you pulls a gun and :

A: fires on the cashier

b: Pulls a gun and demands money

Another situation would be, this all occurs a few lanes down of you are some distance in the store.

I'd say A is a imminent threat to all and firing at contact distance would be justified.

B is a case of moving back out of sight, same goes for a robber a few lanes down.

Remember, it is carry for Personal Defense. If you can't shoot them if they were robbing you, you can't shoot them if they are robbing someone else.
 
Remember, it is carry for Personal Defense. If you can't shoot them if they were robbing you, you can't shoot them if they are robbing someone else.
Click to expand...

Not true, here is an excerpt from missouri's ccw laws:

Use of force in defense of persons.
563.031. 1. A person may, subject to the provisions of subsection 2 of this section, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent he or she reasonably believes such force to be necessary to defend himself or herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful force by such other person, unless:

(1) The actor was the initial aggressor; except that in such case his or her use of force is nevertheless justifiable provided:

(a) He or she has withdrawn from the encounter and effectively communicated such withdrawal to such other person but the latter persists in continuing the incident by the use or threatened use of unlawful force; or

(b) He or she is a law enforcement officer and as such is an aggressor pursuant to section 563.046; or

(c) The aggressor is justified under some other provision of this chapter or other provision of law;

(2) Under the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes them to be, the person whom he or she seeks to protect would not be justified in using such protective force;

(3) The actor was attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of a forcible felony.

2. A person may not use deadly force upon another person under the circumstances specified in subsection 1 of this section unless:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such deadly force is necessary to protect himself, or herself or her unborn child, or another against death, serious physical injury, or any forcible felony;

(2) Such force is used against a person who unlawfully enters, remains after unlawfully entering, or attempts to unlawfully enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle lawfully occupied by such person; or

(3) Such force is used against a person who unlawfully enters, remains after unlawfully entering, or attempts to unlawfully enter private property that is owned or leased by an individual claiming a justification of using protective force under this section.

This clearly states that you can use deadly force in defense of a third party if it is justified. I'm not saying to be a vigilante, just saying that if the situation warranted it, in missouri you would be safe.
 
I think a person should get additional training which is the reason I shoot in IDPA and go to the range. I also read, study, dry fire and do other things to maintain mental and physical discipline. It’s called being responsible.

In our quest of, nay our demand for our “rights,” I think some people forget that a right is always coupled with a responsibility. If enough people, with the “right,” do not assume the responsibility, then their irresponsible actions could result in the loss of the rights of others. For example, I think of the braggart behind the counter at a LGS regaling me with a tale of how he “handled a long haired redneck one night at the races.” Seems the redneck was mouthing off, as rednecks are sometimes prone to do, and our hero went across the parking lot, grabbed the guy by his long hair and shoved a snub nose .38 in the guy’s face. I moved on quickly, but didn’t get far enough to keep for overhearing him relate his story to the next customer who approached him. I ask myself the question - should such a tactical idiot be allowed to carry a concealed weapon just because he has a “right?”

I’m not worried much about the older lady who couldn’t hit the cardboard box during our concealed carry class. Her shooting wasn’t worth a hill of beans, but she struck me as a responsible individual. I do worry about folks like the aforementioned store clerk and I worry about a fellow who got his permit, got a Ruger LCP and hasn’t even shot 30 rounds through the pistol. Is he being responsible? He thinks so, but I’m not convinced.

When the question of more training being needed is asked, I think the crux is tied to an individual’s willingness to accept responsibility. A responsible person will get what they feel they need, within the boundaries of what they can afford; whereas, there are those irresponsible folks that 40 hours of training wouldn’t faze them at all (other than the cost of the training).

Sadly, we often find that those trying to do right suffer a loss of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness by the irresponsibility of others. I suspect my pursuit of happiness was significantly affected by the 50 percent of folks who paid no federal income tax last year, but I digress.

If we, as possessors of a precious right, value our right, then should we not try to assume some responsibility in helping others receive needed training? If we don't want regulations, heaven forbid more being added, let us step up to the plate and do our part in helping others and thereby retain our rights.

Note: You are required to have a concealed carry permit in my state – no open carry.
 
A right is a right regardless of the abuse or neglect of a few. If it can be "taken away" for "safety" because of a few bad apples, then it has degraded to a privilege, not a recognized right.

If you applied the logic that rights demand responsibility then voting and free speech should have been yanked 200 years ago.

I agree we should try to be responsible in respect of our rights, but the recognition of God given rights should not hinge and whether that happens or not.
 
A friend of mine just recently took a state required course to obtain his CCW. I cant believe how much he was taught about how to not get sued for his class.
 
One - I run through drills almost every weekend and I still dont think I or any "average" CCW permit holder can handle a crowd scattering in front and behind your intended target. I don't want to be at Wal-Mart with my 1 year old daughter dodging two shooters. I firmly believe more training should be required to obtain a CCW.
Click to expand...

I have a feeling that the training you'd require would eliminate a high percentage of ccw holders who've successfully defended their lives from criminal attack, or will need to in the future.

Since you don't think you could handle the situation you described, even though you "hold drills" on a regular basis, what training would you require for ccw lest they be denied?

And please don't use the argument that they can "still carry a gun". How? Open carry for an elderly person, or one confined to a wheel chair. That would go over real good when they're out in public.

Just my thoughts on the matter.
 
As far as being mistaken for an active shooter by police, I think that's fairly unlikely given police response times, in general
Click to expand...

There might be no response time for an off duty officer, or ccw holder. They might be there right in the middle of it, just like you, prepared to defend themselves or others from the shooter.

Hey! There goes the shooter now. That must be him---he's got a gun in his hand. He couldn't possible be a good guy like me looking for the real shooter. Hell, no chance of him thinking I'm the shooter 'cause I got my gun out. An hey, what about that guy carrying a gun on his hip for all to see (chances are there's an oc'er around some where these days). Wonder if he's the one.

OK, a little facitiousness, but I think you get what I'm gettin' at--pretty easy for the issue to get confused. Never been in such a situation, but I've heard they're rather caotic. :cool:

NOTE: An armed citizen in the Gabrielle Gifford shooting ran to the sound of gunfire, but was smart enough not to draw his gun. He approached the scene and correctly assessed what was happening.
 
Last edited:
However I run into people I dont even feel comfortable being next to at the range.
Click to expand...
i don't want to be in the same zip code when one of these 'tards that's never handled a gun before or after the ccw safety class feels threatened and starts filling the air with lead.
Click to expand...
But these same people may be in line by you at McDonalds or sitting next to you at church. How can you tell?

Thankfully, my state has no training requirement. CCW holders aren't involved in any more 'bad shoots' than in the states that have a training requirement.
 
Praetorian....IIRC your comment: The two points after that I would like to hear thoughts about are 1. People carrying concealed drawing to try and take out someone such as Loughner without causing more carnage. And 2. Would you worry about other CCW/LEO there mistaking you for an accomplice to the said crazy person? ... bears some thought...

Training is the question...hopefully self imposed at best, mandated otherwise. I don't think it's unreasonable for the 'state' to impose training rqmts. on CCW holders...this point is settled case law....eg: cars, Doctors, Airline Pilots, etc. The fact that we have a 2nd Amendment right doesn't completely negate the 'state's' responsibility for the safety of our fellow citizens. Training, of some sort, is the obvious solution. All of that notwithstanding, IT'S OUR RESPONSIBILITY TO ENSURE THAT THE STATE DOES NOT INFRINGE ON OUR 2ND AMENDMENT RIGHTS. AND THAT MY FRIENDS, IS A NEVER ENDING FIGHT.

As to being mistaken for the BG by LEO personnel or other CCW holders, that comes with the CCW in the first place. No amount of training will suffice. Judgement as to the situation at hand is the answer. It's situational awareness...and some luck as well....most gun fights are over in less than 5 seconds (according to my instructors at Front Sight's Defensive Handgun Course)...and that pretty much eliminates LEO personnel...they're just not likely to be there.

Front Sight also made another interesting, if not intimidating point, and that is: if you use your concealed weapon to defend yourself or your family from grievous bodily harm, your life changes instantly and will never be the same again! The legal implications and expense alone are daunting, not to mention the emotional and spiritual effects of the encounter. For me personally, I spent two tours in Vietnam, was no stranger to the use of "Lethal Force"; saw some nasty stuff, did my share of the work that was necessary, honorably, and there is not a day since that I have not thought about it. Lethal force and its use will stay with you to the grave. All I can say about CCW use is this; be there for your family, no matter what, and accept the consequences of the decisions you made in split seconds...they'll be with you for a long time.

Best Regards, Didn't mean to preach, if that's the way it came out...Rodfac
 
Ever since 1987 in my state you've been able to carry concealed with a minimum requirement: an instructor has to observe you safely discharge a firearm. This is technically a one shot requirement. In lieu of that you can submit a DD214. We don't seem to have a problem with lack of training.

There are several types of people who CCW out there. There are some who went above the basic requirements and got more training. There are others who took a gun show one shot class, and now grandma's walking around with a pistol in her purse that's she's never fired.

Is grandma prepared to take on the bad guy who robs her at the ATM? If she is, it's more due to guts and common sense than training. It doesn't take a lot of training to hit a man sized target 10' away. And there's no training that can teach common sense.

Is it possible that grandma is going to whip out her pistol during a bank robbery in a crowded bank and go beyond the little bit of training she has and shoot a bunch of innocent people? I guess it's possible, but it's not happening.

Are there some people who shouldn't be carrying, but have a permit anyway? Absolutely. There are some cops out there who shouldn't be carrying and they're required to receive LOTS of training. If you took all the dumb citizens and dumb cops together I doubt they outnumber criminals carrying illegally. And in any case the untrained aren't making mistakes in any significant number. So if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
 
More poorly trained people with a drivers license cause harm than poorly trained people with CCW's. I saw a few on the road today.

I didn't get shot up by anyone with minimum training today.

Do we need to require NASCAR-type training for Diver's Ed?
 
I'm against mandatory training, to many ways it can be abused, plus will turn expensive real quick making self protection a rich man's game. Don't recall reading about any training required before we can exercise any of the bill of rights.

I believe in training, I just don't believe in mandatory training, there are places you can get free training, I recommend taking advantage of it. Shoot, if one wants training, make your way to my range, I'll provide free training, you just furnish the gun and ammo. I wouldn't be able to do that if the Gooberment got involved, they'd have some silly "mean nothing" rules.

As far as "what would I do?"...........I don't know, if its just theft, property or money, probably nothing, I'm not certain I want to hurt anyone of something that can be replaced............have to wait to see what happens and play it by ear.

One thing for certain, if my wife, my daughter, or my beautiful granddaughters are threatened you can bet your life things are going to "Get Western" real quick, no holds barred. I'll deal with the ramifications later, one thing anyone contemplating hurting my girls should understand, At my age, life in prison isn't very long.
 
Last edited:
Its comforting to know there were two people [in Tuscon] that held their fire. On the flip side of that. I could be Mr. Pessimistic but I lean towards people like that are the minority of CCW holders.
Click to expand...

Where is your evidence that responsible, thoughtful, careful people are in the minority among CCW holders? The number of CCW people screwing up isn't zero, but it isn't very big either. The carnage predicted by gun control advocates to occur in every state that made allowances for licensed CCW never happened. CCLs are not held only by Bubbas who marry their cousins, as you disparagingly portrayed. Doctors, lawyers, veterinarians, engineers, barbers, plumbers, used car salesmen, sales clerks, and day laborers all have the right to defend themselves and their loved ones by meeting minimum requirements at an affordable cost under the laws of a vast majority of states. That is a good thing for everyone.

I would advise to guard against elitist thinking. The idea that you have to be someone special in order to defend yourself is anti-democratic. Rich and powerful antis have armed bodyguards - they just don't want the little people to defend themselves.

It always comes back to this: a person who lacks the right to defend his own life has no other rights at all, because a dead person does not vote, does not exercise a right to free speech, does not worship freely, does not associate freely with whom he chooses, and so on. Freedom is composed of the rights of all, not the privileges of the rich and elite.
 
It always comes back to this: a person who lacks the right to defend his own life has no other rights at all, because a dead person does not vote, does not exercise a right to free speech, does not worship freely, does not associate freely with whom he chooses, and so on. Freedom is composed of the rights of all, not the privileges of the rich and elite.
Click to expand...

Very well said TailGator! :D

...one thing anyone contemplating hurting my girls should understand, At my age, life in prison isn't very long.
Click to expand...

There is a certain freedom that comes with age! When the kids are grown there aren't so many immediate dependencies on us being there as compared to what we want to protect and pass on to the next generations. Easier to lay it all on the line when it is only a few years either way. Good point Kraig.
 
I was a cop in a large southern city for 10 years. I was very well schooled in the use of firearms and when not to use them. In those 10 years, carrying both on and off duty, I had only one time to use my weapon. (Armed robbery that turned into a gunfight - Armed robber lost.) Most CC's will never have to draw their weapon, and never have to shoot anyone..... But, there’s another side to the coin.

I have met some CC’s that shouldn’t be allowed sharp objects, not even pencils, much less guns. No amount of training, mandatory or not, would help this bunch. They lust for a time to be a hero in a gun battle. They usually carry more than one gun and enough rounds to supply a platoon. They’re the 10% that you have in all walks of life. Those that never get the word, or if they do, ignore it..... Well within their rights, they are still dangerous and they walk among us.

While I am a strong advocate for the right to carry. I just hope that when the time comes for one of these pistoleros fifteen minutes of fame, I’m somewhere else.
 
Last edited:
Just remember you dont need a CCW to carry a weapon in public.
Click to expand...

In NC if you do an over zealous cop can hit you with carrying to terrorize the public. Plus, individual citys and counties have their own regulations on how to carry in a car. Carrying concealed without a permit is an automatic arrest and charge. They don't look the other way like they use to. It is becoming a near zero tolerance policy.

So, yeah you do need a permit in some places.
 
Last edited:
How much time do police officers actually have for practicing shooting in crowds? I bet not that much and should a citizen be expected to have the same level of training?
Click to expand...

Eight hours of active shooter training once a year. At least that is the state mandated requirement as i understand it. It may vary by department and even state.

Most of the cops I know take other classes that look better on a resume. A cop that takes three classes a year on active shooter, close quarter combat, or other such things is actually limitting his career potential. Departments want to see you taking courses like, "report writing for increased convictions" and "Problem Solving with Community Based Policing." That means a lot of cops never get more than the mandated minimum training every year.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top