It Does No Good To Have A Permit and NOT Carry

[J.G. Terry]

If I need a gun there how about staying away. How many permit holds have not shot a handgun since the qualifications? To me, those people are more of a threat than some shooter. It's gotten worse as of late with open carry. Anybody with a full size Glock in an Uncles Mike's holster does not come across very well with me.

[MTT TL]

If I need a gun there how about staying away.

Tell us about this magical place where people don't get murdered.

[USNRet93]

Originally Posted by J.G. Terry

If I need a gun there how about staying away. How many permit holds have not shot a handgun since the qualifications? To me, those people are more of a threat than some shooter. It's gotten worse as of late with open carry. Anybody with a full size Glock in an Uncles Mike's holster does not come across very well with me.

Another pitch for better training..not only for initial ownership but also for CCW...A lot of those who own guns and lots who 'might' carry really have no idea what they are doing..

[AgedWarrior]

In my experience and observations, those who do, seldom engage in lengthy discussions as this thread, they simply do it. And those who engage in such long winded debates, well, they seldom really do carry.

[TunnelRat]

Originally Posted by AgedWarrior

In my experience and observations, those who do, seldom engage in lengthy discussions as this thread, they simply do it. And those who engage in such long winded debates, well, they seldom really do carry.

Interesting. You've met that many members in person? Is there a get together I'm missing?

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[J.G. Terry]

I have not seen anybody shot in nearly fifty years. If you want to pack a gun you don't need an excuse. My point is a majority of permit holders that I know have not had practice since getting the permit . As for open carry, training should be the same as for an LEO. How many permit holders have any target identification training or can keep five shots out of ten in the 9 ring in a B27 target at five yards?

[JohnKSa]

I have not seen anybody shot in nearly fifty years.

It's a rare event. That's why, if we want to claim we can make a difference in rare events, it is critical that people who can carry, do carry all the time and that they have taken responsibility for developing a reasonable skill level.

That's the only way that permit holders will have a chance of making a significant difference in mass shooting outcomes with any kind of reasonable frequency.

How many permit holders have any target identification training or can keep five shots out of ten in the 9 ring in a B27 target at five yards?

My suggestion would be that permit holders take responsibility for developing a reasonable skill level.

But it's really moot at this point, IMO.

We (the entire gun community/permit holders) have had chances to make a difference in mass shootings and yet have really had no significant impact in the big picture.

It has now gotten to the point that too many people believe that something must be done and so something is going to be done.

I'm not blaming anyone or saying anyone shirked their responsibilities because I don't believe that is the case. The gun community isn't responsible for mass shootings, nor is it responsible for stopping them. It would have helped the situation if we could address the "do something crowd" by pointing to a significant percentage of mass shootings where permit holders obviously made a real difference in the outcome but the numbers just don't support that kind of a rebuttal.

Anyway, just my take on the situation as it currently stands.

[Lohman446]

It is possible that potential mass shootings, stopped early by the use or display of lethal force, are simply never acknowledged as mass shootings.

[MTT TL]

It is possible that potential mass shootings, stopped early by the use or display of lethal force, are simply never acknowledged as mass shootings.

Certainly. But when a bomb fails to go off it makes few headlines and is quickly forgotten. It does not mean that the system that prevents bombings worked.

[pwc]

Do I carry at home?

100% of the home invasions happen at home

[J.G. Terry]

This self regulation of skill levels is a submarine with screen doors. Here the fear is of an unqualified totally untrained permit holder engaging anybody in a crowded situation with a firearm.

[JohnKSa]

A person can be afraid of anything, but, IMO, that's not a reasonable fear at all.

The only reasonable conclusion supported by the statistics is that the large majority of permit holders carry only occasionally and/or seem heavily predisposed not to intervene.

Which means that the fear is akin to the fear of being trampled by a zebra in North America. It could happen, but it's not something a rational person should concern themselves with.

[J.G. Terry]

So my fear from an untrained person with a handgun is irrational because of a survey? Those dots don't connect.

[OhioGuy]

If someone is not well trained, I probably would prefer they not intervene at all, than attempt to intervene and cause further damage. I guess I don't have a lot of concern about an untrained person shooting because -- as said above -- an awful lot of people don't carry often, or at all, and if they do they're unlikely to intervene. That doesn't mean it can't happen, of course.

Considering the media environment, can you imagine what would happen if an armed citizen tried to intervene in a shooting and missed, hitting someone else? That would probably become a bigger story than the mass shooter. Heck, even if the citizen DID stop the mass shooter, the one miss would be all that dominated the headlines, and politicians would be pledging to "do something" to curb all these CCW people who are out there just waiting to explode.

Personally, while I see that someone highly trained is certainly better able to confront a killer than Joe and Jane CCW who haven't cleaned their guns in 5 years, I still wonder about the feasibility of anyone with a pistol realistically confronting someone armed with (in recent cases, at least) a rifle and body armor. The asymmetry of the situation is off the charts, not least because the murderer is there specifically to harm as many as possible, and there's no such thing as a penalty for missing a shot. Anything living is a valid target. Anyone responding has to consider the environment, and for that reason I would think the first priority is to escape and not engage unless directly and immediately threatened.

It's all conjecture of course. I've experienced the adrenaline rush and confusion of a force-on-force with plastic pellets and that got intense, and I knew the stakes were low. I can't imagine being in a real situation like that!

[USNRet93]

Personally, while I see that someone highly trained is certainly better able to confront a killer than Joe and Jane CCW who haven't cleaned their guns in 5 years

I think that relates to an earlier thread about being present during a shooting like the one that happened at WM..Do you engage shooter or hunker, hide, leave while protecting you and yours?..I think Jane or Joe CCW holder is that..their CCW is there to protect them and theirs, not any other citizen..ie..hear shots, go other way..look for a place to hide and confront shooter if threatened. I know that's the main reason I EDC.

[TunnelRat]

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

A person can be afraid of anything, but, IMO, that's not a reasonable fear at all.



The only reasonable conclusion supported by the statistics is that the large majority of permit holders carry only occasionally and/or seem heavily predisposed not to intervene.



Which means that the fear is akin to the fear of being trampled by a zebra in North America. It could happen, but it's not something a rational person should concern themselves with.

I'm unclear which fear you're describing in the last paragraph. Do you mean a mass shooting in general, having to intervene in a mass shooting, etc?

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[JERRYS.]

I've forgotten how many stolen gun from car reports I've taken over the years. the excuses I hear the most are: * I was only in the store for a few minutes. * I was hot and it was too big to carry.

[USNRet93]

Originally Posted by JERRYS.

I've forgotten how many stolen gun from car reports I've taken over the years. the excuses I hear the most are: * I was only in the store for a few minutes. * I was hot and it was too big to carry.

Gotta agree..what is the 2 most common uses for a whole bunch of owned handguns?..To carry and to shoot(for fun)...but more than a few I know have guns they describe as 'hard, uncomfortable to carry and/or not much fun to shoot'...
Regardless of which gun I own, number one on the list is 'FTS-Fun To Shoot'...

[JohnKSa]

Originally Posted by TunnelRat

I'm unclear which fear you're describing in the last paragraph. Do you mean a mass shooting in general, having to intervene in a mass shooting, etc?

The fear of unintended casualties from a permit holder engaging during a mass shooting.

Originally Posted by J.G. Terry

So my fear from an untrained person with a handgun is irrational because of a survey? Those dots don't connect.

Not because of a survey, because of the fact that we just don't see it happening.

When was the last time you saw an incident involving a permit holder "engaging anybody in a crowded situation with a firearm" resulting in unintentional casualties?

Originally Posted by OhioGuy

Considering the media environment, can you imagine what would happen if an armed citizen tried to intervene in a shooting and missed, hitting someone else?

I agree. And yet nobody is citing examples of it happening.

I'm not saying that it's not happening because permit holders are really skilled and well-trained. I'm saying it's not happening because:

Originally Posted by OhioGuy

...an awful lot of people don't carry often, or at all, and if they do they're unlikely to intervene.

[manta49]

Mass shooters are a lot of things, but i am sure they are not all stupid. If they think a lot of people are likely to be armed in certain locations, they will just move the attack. So people being armed could move attacks but not stop them. As for CCW holders carrying all the time, that would be up to them. Americans would not accept the level of security and the disruption it would cause to help stop some shootings.

[JohnKSa]

Mass shooters are a lot of things, but i am sure they are not all stupid. If they think a lot of people are likely to be armed in certain locations, they will just move the attack. So people being armed could move attacks but not stop them.

The El Paso shooting is a clear counterexample. Gun friendly location in a gun friendly state. Maybe some do pick their targets based on the likelihood of armed resistance, but it's clear some don't really care.

In some (many?) cases the target is obviously chosen for very specific reasons that have nothing to do with the chances of armed resistance. e.g. If a mass shooter is targeting coworkers, the site of the shooting will likely be the workplace, regardless of whether it's a GFZ or not.

As for CCW holders carrying all the time, that would be up to them.

Absolutely. We just need to be honest about it when we talk about the actual value of permit holders against mass shootings.

[MTT TL]

The El Paso shooting is a clear counterexample. Gun friendly location in a gun friendly state.

Not really. The shooter picked his target based predicated upon the idea that most of the shoppers would be either border crossers or in the country illegally and therefore extremely unlikely to be legally armed.

[manta49]

Not really. The shooter picked his target based predicated upon the idea that most of the shoppers would be either border crossers or in the country illegally and therefore extremely unlikely to be legally armed

If that was the case, it just shows the attacker will just pick a target where people are unlikely to be armed, that just moves attacks it does not stop them.

[JohnKSa]

Not really. The shooter picked his target based predicated upon the idea that most of the shoppers would be either border crossers or in the country illegally and therefore extremely unlikely to be legally armed.

It was true that a significant percentage of the people in the Walmart El Paso were unlikely to be carrying, but the idea that he picked it for that reason is obviously incorrect.

He picked it because there were likely to be a lot of Mexican Nationals in it and that's who he was targeting. In other words, he picked that location because it allowed him to target the people he wanted to kill. And he picked it in spite of the incontrovertible facts that it was a gun friendly location in a gun friendly state.

By the way, the statistics, assuming he bothered with anything like that--personally I think he never gave it a second thought, suggest that even with the large number of Mexican Nationals in the store, there should still have been around 20-50 permit holders present at the time of the shooting. The range depends on how you run the TX permit statistics and how one estimates the percentage of Mexican Nationals to TX residents.

None of them made a difference in the outcome, either because they chose not to carry or chose not to intervene. (Which is, again, their right. There's no obligation to carry or to intervene.)

[J.G. Terry]

It is dangerous to have the Mall Ninjas and Wanna Be's running around armed with no training. It is a disaster going to happen.