Walmart Shooting-CC Holders Hindered Police? NOT!

Double Naught Spy said:
Well, there were several people there with several guns and none engaged the shooter. It is a salient observation.

There are no reports that any good guys with guns, threatened, drew on, or interacted with the shooter in any way. Nobody is being heralded as a hero for stopping the shooter in any form or fashion.

WalMarts can be quite large - if someone is in Ladies Wear, shooting, and I'm in Automotive, I will be quite some distance away with a great deal of intervening items/shelving/etc. I won't be able to see him, hearing will be distorted, and I will be unsure of what exactly is going on - did someone drop a whole bunch of boxes from a powered lift?
Where was the shooter? How long was he in the store? Where were the armed citizens? Were any of them actually in a position to see the suspect? Did the armed citizens have families with them, people they are responsible for?

Last, this has been brought up by LOTS of people over the years, yes, CCW permit holders are armed, for DEFENSE. In many states that can stretch to defense of a third person, but there is not now nor has there ever been any legal requirement for a CCW permit holder TO intervene on anyone else's behalf, and many would hesitate in todays legal world. Off duty LEO, yes, absolutely, but the truck driver and the barber shopping in Sporting Goods, or the gas station clerk in Beauty Supplies, no. How often do we hear the advice, "if in a mass shooting, keep your family safe and exit if possible" They did exactly what was suggested as a logical course of action for years.
 
Another factor which I should have mentioned in my previous post is that there are a lot of license holders who don't carry and that might get the two populations (armed citizens & off-duty/retired LEOs) much closer to each other, numerically speaking.
this is the way I see it too, also that the off duty/retired LEO is more likely to have actual experience in similar situations to know when to respond while the armed citizen even with training is more likely going to be their first time and only going to respond if specifically confronted by the bad guy.
 
I think armoredman hit the most probable reason for no armed intervention. The BG was in the front of the store, popped in, fired a few shots and left. WalMarts are big and unless the CC holder was checking out at the time they may probably have been far removed from the incident location. In this case they may have decided to shelter as best they can and wait for the BG to come in their location, if indeed the incident was to escalate further.
 
DNS said:
Well, there were several people there with several guns and none engaged the shooter. It is a salient observation.

Wel, isn’t that basically the textbook response? Hunker down and gather information while you defend yourself? I can’t see where moving through a Walmart trying to locate and identify the shooter is going to be a solid strategy in most cases. Which means unless the shooter walked into one of the armed people AND they were able to identify him as the shooter, there probably isn’t going to be an encounter.
 
WalMarts can be quite large - if someone is in Ladies Wear, shooting, and I'm in Automotive, I will be quite some distance away with a great deal of intervening items/shelving/etc. I won't be able to see him, hearing will be distorted, and I will be unsure of what exactly is going on - did someone drop a whole bunch of boxes from a powered lift?
Where was the shooter? How long was he in the store? Where were the armed citizens? Were any of them actually in a position to see the suspect? Did the armed citizens have families with them, people they are responsible for?

Right, but the argument offered was that said armed shoppers might have scared away the gunman, hence precluding him from doing further harm. After all, they must have been close enough to the gunman that he noticed them apparently pointing their guns at him while he was engaged with murdering people, hence he ran away. It wasn't somebody over in Automotive or over in the changing rooms that pulled his gun and scared away the gunman at the front of the store, right?

So if we are going to grasp for a shining light that CCW folks were in Wal-Mart and actually did something to change the dynamics of the situation without actually verbally, physically, or ballistically challenging the shooter (none of which have been reported), despite the problems you noted, then there should be some evidence to support it, but there isn't at this time.

Last, this has been brought up by LOTS of people over the years, yes, CCW permit holders are armed, for DEFENSE. In many states that can stretch to defense of a third person, but there is not now nor has there ever been any legal requirement for a CCW permit holder TO intervene on anyone else's behalf, and many would hesitate in todays legal world. Off duty LEO, yes, absolutely, but the truck driver and the barber shopping in Sporting Goods, or the gas station clerk in Beauty Supplies, no. How often do we hear the advice, "if in a mass shooting, keep your family safe and exit if possible" They did exactly what was suggested as a logical course of action for years.

Hmm, most CCW permit holders are NOT armed. That is one of the shortcomings of claiming CCW permit holders are going to stop a lot of crime, not that there are even more than a few percent of permit holders in the first place.

I don't know of a single state in the US where laws must be stretched to include defense of a 3rd person. It is legal in all 50 states, no stretching involved.

Maybe folks did do "exactly right" and retreated to safety as you say and didn't engage the shooter in any form or fashion. After all, it was not reported that any did. So then the argument that he saw the guns of CCW folks and left because of it seems far-fetched, and maybe for the reasons you suggest.

The argument has been made many times..."If only somebody was there with a gun, the gunman might have been stopped." After all, "the only way to stop a bad man with a gun is a good guy with a gun." Well, they were there and no evidence is reported that they stopped him with their guns.

I am not chastising the CCW people for not stopping the shooter. Where and how a CCW person decides to act is a very personal decision that is dependent on the circumstances of the situation and no two situations are going to be the same. They should do what they feel is appropriate for their safety.
 
Last edited:
Yet the news is currently reporting that 2 citizens outside the church in Texas engaged that shooter, causing him to break off his assault. Hmmmmm
 
Last edited:
He walked into a GUNS ALLOWED ZONE where there were apparently several gun carriers present and not one of them did a single thing, not one stinking thing. Just how much longer did the gunman need to remain in the store before the good citizen gun carriers were going to start saving lives??????? How many more people did he need to kill before they reacted???????

Its the type of situation where those who have never experienced it can say "I would do this..." or "I would do that..." and then when they find themselves in such a situation, everything gets tossed out the window.
"A plan is just a list of things that never happen."

I don't carry a gun so I can go out and be a superhero. I carry to defend my life and that of my family.
 
Yet the news is currently reporting that 2 citizens outside the church in Texas engaged that shooter, causing him to break off his assault. Hmmmmm
ONE person engaged the shooter, using a rifle, not a handgun. A second person was flagged down by the person who engaged the shooter and together they chased the shooter in his vehicle until he stopped and either expired or committed suicide.

Good work on their part, but nothing to do with concealed handguns or concealed handgun licenses.
 
Wasn't going to comment on this one but I think I will. I am a CHL holder. Sometimes I carry and other times I don't carry a firearm. I have never been involved in a gunfight, and I hope I never am. Understand that you as a CHL holder are responsible for any and every bullet that comes from your gun. You have to think of the legal ramifications that may come as a result of firing that weapon. I had this same discussion with friends not to long ago. Would I or would I not engage armed perpetrator. My CHL is for my protection and that of my family. Unless the cards were stacked in my favor, I would not engage an active shooter. Because there is always a chance that you could lose that fight. Also, remember the LEGAL RAMIFICATIOS, you could be held liable for killing an innocent person, no matter how good your intentions were. I am not saying you shouldn't engage an active shooter, just make sure that you have the advantage.
 
ONE person engaged the shooter, using a rifle, not a handgun.

The point is a private citizen with a gun stepped in and engaged the gunman. The premise of the statements i was addressing, seemed to be that armed private citizens wont make a difference. That is clearly refuted by this incident.

CCW, open carry, deploying a gun from your trunk or house. Armed pvt citizens DO/CAN make a difference
 
Sure. Armed citizens CAN make a difference and sometimes DO make a difference.

However, in a discussion about CCWs stopping an attack, Willeford's actions are somewhat out of place.

Willeford didn't use a CCW, he doesn't appear to have reached the scene of the attack until it was over, and it doesn't appear that he actually stopped the attack.

Willeford did great--I commend him for being willing to take action and for taking appropriate action--but it's about as far from a CCW at the scene intervening and stopping an attack as it could possibly be and still be about an armed citizen engaging a bad guy.
 
JohnKSa said:
it seems that people without LE background/training are very unlikely to mount an armed intervention into an active shooting situation even if they're in place and armed.

This almost certainly comes down to training, confidence, and mindset. Specifically, it has to do with the type of lizard-brain confidence that comes from being exposed to (and actively absorbing) good training from a competent source. The gut-level confidence that comes from realistic and good training is a very different thing than the emotional sensation of confidence that untrained people often feel.

The vast majority of concealed carry people have no training beyond whatever it takes in their states to get a carry permit. In many states, that's no training at all, or a very minimal 'gun safety class' that may not even include any range time.

Compare that to the average cop, who has been through (last time I looked) around 40 hours of handgun instruction on the range during the academy training phase, along with regular refresher training in that and other skills. And of course, the other elements of academy training -- not firearms specifically, but everything that goes with learning how to deal with tense and even life threatening situations and take charge of a scene -- also supports the physical skill of handling the firearm with confidence.

On the other hand...

Very few ccw people, relatively speaking, seek out training beyond the very very minimal state-required level (most of which is offered by poorly-trained NRA instructors who themselves have had nothing more than two days of instruction, most of that in a classroom).

When asked, most non-trained ccw holders will give an explanation for not seeking out more training, that sounds something like the following: "I grew up around guns, and I'm pretty good with them, and training costs too much, and besides I practice a lot, and are you saying that I cannot be good unless I've paid money to someone for a class? That's just stupid. I know what I'm doing."

And most of them really, really, deeply believe that -- on a conscious level. They are highly confident in their self-defense skills. Again, on a conscious level.

However, on the level where a person stands up to act in the face of deadly danger, maybe even moving to the sound of the guns and doing whatever it takes to solve the problem, that's when the person's apparently-high level of confidence becomes a lot more realistic about what they can actually do.

Faced with the reality of real people -- living, breathing, moving, running around and shrieking, shouting orders, peeing their pants and crying for mommy -- bleeding and dying, quite possibly downrange of the good guy's muzzle, maybe not so clear who the assailant is ...

That's when the faux confidence of "growing up around guns" vanishes. And unless the person has absorbed some decent mindset and physical skills somewhere along the way, there's nothing to take its place.

Taken as a whole, law enforcement officers may be generally not-so-good shooters. At least not when measured by the skill sets we see at local IDPA or USPSA matches every weekend. But when measured against the average gun owner, these guys are gods. The average cop has more training than the average ccw holder and the average cop is head and shoulders (and knees and toes) above the average gun owner in both their physical skill and in their realistic, mindset-based commitment to "run to the sound of the guns."

Most gun owners, even most ccw holders, haven't really thought about the gritty realities of self defense. Or to the degree they have thought about it, they've thought about it as a fantasy -- as if both the physical skill and the gut-level courage it takes would simply appear in the heat of the moment.

And sometimes, of course, it does.

But more often it does not.

Anyone here want to be one of the heroes in a bad situation? Get good training.

Want to save people's lives so they don't bleed to death or die of shock in front of you? Get yourself to a good class, learn some medical skills and practice those skills realistically and regularly.

Want to save people's lives so they don't get shot by the mass killer coming toward them? Get yourself to a good class, learn some defensive shooting skills, and practice those skills realistically and regularly.

Don't kid yourself.

Don't just rely on whatever your conscious mind is telling you about your skills. Got to get that lesson down into the lizard brain, the one that will make the decision to act when your life is on the line. And the only somewhat-reliable way to do that is to build the skills and follow that up with realistic role play.

pax
 
I amsure these have already been sicussed at some point around here but training, skills and experience aside there are plenty of other good reasons for the CHL to not put himself in danger.



- A CHL may have his/ her family with him/ her to protect. The first priority should be to keep them safe.

- An active shooting situation is dynamic. Other police officers have been killed by their own when responding off duty to shootings. A CHL has even worse odds.

- A police officer when acting lawfully and within the guidance of agency will be protected to a degree from lawsuits and insured by the agency. A CHL not so.
 
Back
Top