CC...a critical review and discussion

[az doug]

...On last Sunday's Fox News show, Feinstein was on talking about the shooting. The question was posed that if more people carried, that the incident could have been stopped. Her comment back was; "What if they shot someone other than the shooter?"

The answer to the question is, yes that can happen. The question that no one wants to ask is, if a CCW holder accidentially shoots a friendly while they stop the bad guy, is that acceptable? In many liberals eyes, that is NOT acceptable. They would prefer to allow the bad guy to kill as many people as they like.

So OP, while I partially agree with your thoughts/concerns, but at the end of the day you can get a friendly on friendly shooting (just like Cops shooting Cops) and innocent people might get hurt in an effort to kill the bad guy and I am fine with that. ...C4

I understand what Grant is saying and in theory do not disagree with the premise. In AZ if you are justified in shooting the “bad guy,” but miss and hit an innocent bystander you are not allowed to use the fact you were shooting at the bad guy as your defense. Basically, you do not have a defense for shooting the wrong person. If you mistake a good guy as being the bad guy based on his actions…you may have a defense, as long as you hit the person you are shooting at and no one else. None of this means you will be prosecuted, it means you could be prosecuted.

I would argue that the shooter DID THINK everyone was armed (as he knows CCW is common in his State). This is why he had body armor on and a helmet (as he has expecting a gun fight).

So if everyone was OPEN carrying, would have not done what he did? No, I don't think so. C4

I don’t know if he was wearing it due to concern over CCW or LEO. I do know he equipped himself to receive fire regardless of who it was from.

… but I do think that a show of force is always a good thing and bad guys tend to be cowards and not looking for a fair fight (so they will always select places where there are the most sheep). C4

I have always told LEOs I train that if you find yourself in a fair fight you did not plan properly. So, I am not certain what that makes us.

... Every State has some kind of "qual" that a CCW holder has to pass. ...C4

AZ, Vermont and Alaska are right to carry states. I cannot speak to the laws in Vermont and Alaska, but in AZ no permit or qualification is required to carry concealed. I am very torn on this subject. There is the part of me that wants a qual course like Grant posted about. That part of me also believes there should be more law and legal training, force on force, decision making/discretionary shooting…just like LEOs. Then there is the constitutionalist in me that believes it is a right so we cannot regulate it. I have had this discussion with several LEO friends and most believe it is a right, therefore no training or permit. (Welcome to AZ) All of my friends and I agree the individual intending to CCW should seek training on their own. (Many of my friends also believe we should remove warning labels from all products and let natural selection take its course.)

Grant, I quoted you a lot in my thread. I am not trying to pick on you (not that you would care) I actually agree with most of your posts.

This movie theater shooting was a difficult situation for everyone. The smoke grenade, or “tear gas,” providing cover for the shooter and people fleeing would have made this extremely difficult for a CCW holder or off-duty LEO. On duty LEO with long guns would have an advantage over CCW or off-duty. If the CCW holder – off-duty LEO could not get a clear shot due to the smoke, people fleeing… then, the best solution I came up with in my mind required a CCW holder or off-duty LEO very close to the shooter to go on the offensive and attack. Tie the shooter’s gun up momentarily and put rounds upward from underneath his chin. The person performing this maneuver may very well get shot. Unknown if he would survive or not. (Flight 93 keeps coming to mind when I think of this) Again, the person performing this would have to be very close to the shooter and in all likely hood would be shot anyway, if he tried to flee or "hide in place."

[CarbonCycles]

I believe everyone has the right to carry, period end of story.

Skirting the right statement. I disagree with you. Not everyone is physically or mentally capable of carrying a firearm. I use the analogy of senior citizens driving. In their youth they may have been incredible drivers, but as they have aged, I'd rather them seek alternative transportation methods other than driving their personally owned vehicle.

I've lost track on the number of times someone says they would or like to carry but guns scare them. That mindset from the initial beginning has already told me everything I need to know about them failing under pressure (i.e., do not depend on them to come through under extreme duress.) Bottom line, some people are mentally not wired to do the things that need to be done.

[CarbonCycles]

Since I can't post in GD, and I thought this was pertinent for the discussion RE CC...good commonsense article:

http://sofrep.com/9657/navy-seal-les...UWRHc.facebook

[Rosco Benson]

"Keep and BEAR" is pretty clear. We are talking about a right, regardless of whether or not the sad state of the republic has caused this to become viewed as a state-regulated privilege.

That said, we would all prefer that everyone train to a high level of expertise and maintain that perishable skill with regular practice. Many of us on this board do just that. That is a good thing and it makes us capable of handling more difficult and complex situations that those who train and practice less.

Realistically though, how much skill does it take to handle most defensive shooting situations? Generally speaking, the target is large and close. Many times simply producing the weapon puts the criminal(s) to flight. I would not want to see a qualification bar raised so high that decent citizens, who aren't ever going to attain a high level of expertise, are barred from carrying weapons with which they are capable of handling typical defensive scenarios.

The theater scenario is way off the scale of typical. The more mundane situations, as reported by the NRA's "The Armed Citizen" and other sources, better reflect the likely reality.

Rosco

[Preliator]

Rant time!

First, I'm a huge PROPONENT for the 2nd amendment and carrying; however, I find myself torn RE carrying. Now before you start either ranting or tuning out, let me express my POV...I view carrying as a privilege that comes with great responsibility. Responsibility as defined in knowing how to run your equipment proficiently, understanding the moral/ethical/legal implications of carrying, and having the right mindset.

Obviously from your post, you ARE NOT.

Now with that stated, I'm starting to get overly concerned with the mantra that everyone should carry. I think that is a recipe for disaster that could lead to many lives lost because of friendly fire. BTW, this conversation mainly revolves around the average citizen...trained professionals and LEO obviously have their own protocols.

Not every one SHOULD carry, but every one has the RIGHT to carry. (except as stated on page 1, those that 'voluntarily' gave up that right.

I think it's a simple answer...not everyone has the training and mindset to carry. Using the CO incident as an example, statistically the odds were stacked against any one armed and trained (i.e, proficient) citizen being able to successfully (i.e. without inflicting collateral damage) dispatch the shooter. Now, imagine the incident if 2 or more armed citizens were present. Who do you shoot? Whose the bad guy? Double this when you've lost 2 or more of your senses and have no situational awareness (as most sheeples do). Do you shoot everyone and ask questions later?

What are these purported statistics? any links?

Further, unless you have a detailed diagram and after action report of what was reconstructed to have happened in the theatre you have no way of proving anything that you have stated is true.

As a father of two small children I take my familie's safety seriously, and the "run them to safety" cop out to not doing the right thing (I dont mean morally, I mean tactically) pisses me off. Try herding your family to safety in a shopping mall that is well lit, has ample room and lots of other "targets" - can you ensure that your family will not be found by som maniacs bullets? No, you can not. Many times the best course of action is going to be attacking the assailant, attacking him violently and with everything at your disposal.

Now imagine that you are in a dark, crowded theatre with narrow isles and 200 other people all mobbing towards the doors that you intend to herd your family to safety through. Its hot, noisy and candy, popcorn and soda are all over the floor. Bodies are laying in the isles (whether hiding, injured or dead is unclear).

Some times you might have to stand and fight, or better yet - take the initiative to protect what is dear to you.

Rant over.

[munch520]

I have expressed several times that if I was KING, I would require everyone to shoot your States LE qual's and if you couldn't pass it, you couldn't carry.

Completely agree. In Ohio, the qualification is a joke. And from what I understand there's no re-qualification? I'd feel much better around the 95% that carries and never shoots if they were held to a higher standard. I mentioned that once on another forum and was beat down by the 'don't regulate my rights' chest-thumping.

ETA: depending on our state's standards, I may not be allowed carry if my preferences came to fruition. I'll confirm/deny that at next month's pistol course

[Bluedreaux]

As a father of two small children I take my familie's safety seriously, and the "run them to safety" cop out to not doing the right thing (I dont mean morally, I mean tactically) pisses me off.

Of course, CC's lack of statistics is no more absurd than your mention of having to traverse spilled popcorn to get out.

I realize you were ranting and I think I see where you were coming from. But the "tactically right" thing to do for my family is to keep them safe. That might mean fighting, running or sheltering in place before doing either. To call running your kids to safety a "cop out" is not being intellectually honest about what your tactical goals are and what options are available to you.

[gunrunner505]

I've thought about this subject quite a bit, even before this mess in CO. I have my non resident CCW permits for Utah and Florida. As I live in the Peoples Republik of Illinoiski it does me no good at home. Only the bad guys, the cops and the politicians can carry here. It's illegal for the mere commoner who doesn't appreciate the weighty issues.

After joining this site and listening to a bunch of guys like Grant and Ironman8 and a few others out there who seem to have your shit wired pretty well I have changed some of my thinking on this, some not all.

I believe in the right to bear arms and the right to carry. I know that's not for everyone. There are some who would, and quite honestly really should, choose not to carry. And that's ok too but it's not what we're here to discuss.

That being said, if I am ever in a situation where I am faced with a deadly force encounter my primary responsibility is to me and mine. I have 3 kids, all under 5. Yeah we've been busy.
My job is to get their mother and those kids out of danger. If I am forced to engage the threat my job is to reduce that threat as best/quickly as I can, to defend them and defend myself. If I save someone else or prevent someone else from harm as well, that's a bonus.

While I have had some training I have not had as much as I feel I should and certainly not as much as I will ultimately have. For the 2 clases I've taken we had to pass a qualification shoot. The first one was pretty easy. The second one was the same qualification the cops in Illinois have to take to graduate the academy. Now I wasn't ready to have to take a qual course, it surprised me, I never thought about it. In my mind, during class, I had built it up to be much worse that it was. Any cop who doesn't shoot 100% on it, well, I'll just stand behind you...

As civilian CCWs it's not our responsibility to defend others, while many of us would feel honor or morally bound to do so we are not required to. If we engage the threat to defend ourselves we will by extension defend others. I think there should be some laws on the books to insulate a civilian CCW in the event they do have to employ their weapon. What if one of your rounds is a through and through? Comes out the bad guy and strikes someone else? Are you protected from that? What if someone in a panic runs right in front of your muzzle as you fire?

You didn't start the fight but you responded to it. What protections do you have under the law? This is assuming you did it right. If you screwed up, that's another story.

None of us have a cop in our pocket, ready at a moments notice. It's up to us all to protect ourselves and our own.

[az doug]

...I think there should be some laws on the books to insulate a civilian CCW in the event they do have to employ their weapon. What if one of your rounds is a through and through? Comes out the bad guy and strikes someone else? Are you protected from that? What if someone in a panic runs right in front of your muzzle as you fire? ...

LEOs in AZ are not protected from this either. They can be prosecuted. I am not saying they will be, just like I cannot say you would be. That decision will be made based on a totality of the circumstances. What I can say is it is a violation of the law in Arizona for civilian or LEO to shoot an innocent 3rd party. Doesn't matter if it is a through and through, person running in front or you are just a bad shot.

[gunrunner505]

LEOs in AZ are not protected from this either. They can be prosecuted. I am not saying they will be, just like I cannot say you would be. That decision will be made based on a totality of the circumstances. What I can say is it is a violation of the law in Arizona for civilian or LEO to shoot an innocent 3rd party. Doesn't matter if it is a through and through, person running in front or you are just a bad shot.

What are the odds of it happening? I'm sure it's pretty low. One of those if you're afraid of "X", you'd never leave the house. It's food for thought none the less