Conceal and Carry, a gun in every backpack

"If only we could carry a weapon someone would have taken him out before he killed so many."

Ok. So, lets say you have a hand gun in your backpack. You hear shooting. You grab your weapon and head to the door.

You step out into the hall. You see a gunman. You fire one, two times. He drops. You still hear bullets firing.

Was the gunman really the gunman or just another Conceal and Carry Citizen. Another door opens. No time to think.

Will he shoot you? Is he the gunman or does he think your the gunman. No time to ask. You could be dead. SHOOT AGAIN! SHOOT AGAIN!

Around the corner in the next hall another Conceal and Carry Citizen opens the door.......Just downstairs the swat team is advancing.

They are looking for a gunman. Will they know who is the gunman? Will they know you are a Conceal and Carry American hero?

Will the families of the Conceal and Carry American heroes you just took down realize you were just trying to be an American hero?

Too late......the swat team just took you out. Who was the hero? Who was the gunman?

Your home is now being searched and your parents questioned about your behavior patterns leading up to the shootings.

That settles it.

is a dead gunman.

You pull out a gun and the target on your back just lit up with neon and sparklers.

Then re-evaluate your scenario.

...You hear shooting. You grab your weapon and head to the door.

You step out into the hall. You see a gunman....

I'd stop right there. This is a decision point. The way I was trained, with no additional information this is definitely a no-shoot. Any doubt as to who you would be shooting at makes it a no-shoot situation.

I'm sure the training will always assert itself just in the right way, and a happy end will follow.

Try it for yourself and see.

The ones to worry about are probably among the people who think they're great big gun experts - sort of like the most dangerous drivers tend to be among those who think they are the greatest drivers on earth.

I took an NRA CCW course, and decided that I wasn't able to properly (SAFELY) carry a firearm. So I don't. I have every legal right to, but I know that for me, it's not something that I trust myself doing.

That being said, if SOMEONE would have been (legally) armed, the bulk of this tragedy very possibly could have been prevented.

You're making my argument for me here. :D How many gun-owners can recognize a no-shoot situation? So few COPS are able to.

It's part of their training. They can't even get a permit to carry a loaded gun without passing these things first.

Human beings are fallible.

but then, the military 'should' as the people best trained on weapons, be able to avoid killing civilians and each other, but it doesn't always work that way.

imagine this: you enter the hallway and find a student standing in another doorway, shooting into that classroom. do you wait to postitively id him, or shoot him first? maybe he is shooting the original shooter, maybe he is shooting a random student. how do you know, in a split second? waiting costs the other student her life, but maybe saves the hero. tactical intelligence is almost impossible to come by in a situation with hundreds of friendlies, some armed, and only one bad guy, who you cannot identify.

or do you simply wait in your classroom to positively id the shooter when he comes in, knowing that others will die while you wait?

imagine a game where you and 100 of your friends are in a building. there are ten rooms. in 6 of the rooms, there is a paintball gun (you know you have one, but you don't know who else does) there is one person who intends to kill people. he also has a gun. when do you start using force?

A person shooting into a classroom is a whole 'nuther situation. Tactical intelligence is NOT that hard to come by. There are SWAT teams who can solve these little puzzles in their sleep.


In your game scenario, I'd never be the first shooter.

And then magnify it again due to the vast numbers of people who have access to these weapons. Given a larger and larger sample size, the more likely an individual will be possessed of a weapon he or she should not have.

Thus, a tragedy will occur. Now, it's true a tragedy will occur no matter what our weapons policy, as others have pointed out--we just have to decide where to draw the line. I doubt many people believe that if all nations had access to nuclear weapons, we'd have world peace. With increasingly powerful weapons, the consequences of widespread proliferation become increasingly serious--the risk becomes greater and greater that one person will abuse the power and cause a tragedy. The question is, where does one draw the line?

Precisely my thought. The process of elimination might be helpful... if we first take the ideas we know for sure will not work.

Eradicating all nukes and all guns from the world is no guarantee some nutjob isn't going to get hold of either.

Enforcing current laws, making ALL gun purchases subject to background checks, creating stiffer penalties for crimes committed with guns... a good start.

Still, did the current shooter have a criminal record? I don't think so. We've not heard that yet at least.

There's no shooting until a) you know for sure you are shooting at your positively identified assailant, or b) that person is shooting at you or other innocent bystanders, which pretty much fulfills item a.

And I'm really hoping a loaded firearm isn't floating around in someone's backpack either. That's what holsters are for.

Most of the ladies I know carry theirs in their purse.

says the gun is carried in a backpack.

Purses work too, but you should still have them in a holster inside the purse. Safety levers can be knocked out of position when reaching for a cell phone... or a lipstick.

or innocent civilians mistakenly taken out by cops.

The only up side I see for promoting concealed carry among civilians is we could fire all the cops and quit paying taxes for them since they would no longer be needed, apparently.

People don't follow the rules of the road either, but lets see anyone try to take our stupid cars away. Between the drunk drivers (which is still illegal, I believe) and the idiots who think they are above the law and drive any damn way they please, and the ultra-hoggy, phallic-ly symbolic SUV monsters who think they own the road, you take your life in your hand every time you get behind the wheel.

Where does it end? All people will not obey all the laws all the time. You have to work around that without taking away rights.

is that the other guy is doing the exact same thing, and he turns to you and raises his weapon, you have to shoot first, right? so does he, even though neither of you started this. Soldiers in chaotic situtations routinely kill their companions ("friendly" fire, right?) and they are well trained and wearing matching uniforms!

And putting yourself out in the open in such a hot situation would be a terrible tactical blunder. Generally, you don't intentionally try to put yourself in harm's way. You reserve use of deadly force until you or someone already in your immediate vicinity is threatened.

Gun fighting is more intense than you can imagine until you have gotten some actual training.

can you?

So your question is moot. Unless I know for sure he's a BG it's a no-shoot.

have you met your average human lately? under stress, we stop being all that logical, even people who took a class a couple of years ago.

When I am under extreme stress I tend to freeze up and try to hide.

All you have to do is stay out of the criminals line of fire.

Easy!

They are to be used as a last resort, when you have no viable alternative to protect yourself or someone near you.

Take one of those courses, John. You will be very surprised what you learn.

If you can stay out of the line of fire at will, you don't really need a gun for protection. If you can't, then the scenario in the OP seems likely.

Unfortunately for the victims at VT, at least some of them had exaggerated opinions of their ability to stay out of trouble.

Therein lies the problem.

Look it up.

not for open carry. which just seems a bit silly to me.

but no, there are no population restrictions, legally. the Virginia Supreme Court threw out some restrictions from NoVa a couple of years back.

I don't need to look it up. I have no reason to disbelieve you.

I do think everyone who can qualify for a concealed weapons permit should be able to get one.

I don't have problems with general gun ownership. I don't, however, feel as comfortable with everyone walking around armed.

I have family who loves to hunt. I don't get it, but I don't begrudge them since they do use all parts to the animal, either for food or by selling the parts to those who will do something with the parts. Anyway, they have guns in the home, which are safely stored. This, I could worry less about. To me, whatever. But I can't picture these same people walking around wit guns in their purse or guns in holsters under their jackets all the time. I would be nervous around all that, and I know for sure they aren't crazy, violent or untrained.

NOBODY is suggesting that.

NOT ONE PERSON HERE! NOT EVEN THE NR FUCKING A!

Fucking Straw Man arguments.

There is no need. This is the second time I've said there is no need to get all snippy and hateful with me. I'm not against guns nor am I interested in taking them away from anyone who is qualified to carry one. I question where some people think guns should be allowed, but I'm not attacking you. But, you attacked me.

Have a good evening. Perhaps next time our paths cross, it will be under more polite circumstances.

I get tired of repeating myself.

Or, you take something personally.

Have a good evening.

And you would have us believe that you also apply such self restraint to your use of a concealed weapon? Somehow that just doesn't make me feel any better.

The sale and possession of handguns and assault weapons should be banned. Hunting rifles permitted with requisite hunting licenses and training.

Law enforcement and the military are the only people with a legitimate need for a handgun or assault weapons. And no concealed carry permits for civilians.

I know you won't like this post. Please don't get mad and frustrated and shoot somebody.

You seem amazingly eager to alienate enough gun owners to ENSURE that our party loses control of every branch of the federal government.

Nothing you have proposed is workable, and the idea of denying concealed carry permits to civilians has absolutely no merit, no reason to believe it would improve public safety at all.

That's what it really comes down to.

The majority of Americans support stricter gun control, elimination of handguns, and elimination of assault weapons. It is only a very vocal minority that supports public ownership of these deadly weapons. How will Democrats supporting what the majority of Americans want, cause us to lose elections? The poll linked below show a clear majority of Americans support gun control.

http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=471

And now I'm in Virgina, maybe to attend college or start a new job, and I'm in a state that does require training for the first time. When I come into the state, before I get settled and find out about how to legally carry a weapon in the state, I find myself in a shoot-out scenario like what happened at VT. Everyone else is shooting, but they've had training. If I had also been required to have that same training, then I would be prepared to safely protect myself and the other students. But, I come from a state that doesn't require it. So, I'm either helpless, or I jump in unprepared and end up shooting more people because I wasn't ready for the situation.

The point is, shouldn't everyone be required to have tactical training is they are purchasing a gun for protection? Personally, as a citizen, I'd feel safer knowing the guy next door with a gun knows what the hell he's doing with it.

They teach these things in self-defense courses.

Try one some time.

Don't give people that much credit. The average person isn't paying attention.

And really, there is no need to be snippy. I'm not being snippy with you.

The average person has nothing to do with the topic.

When one considers and idea, one must consider that idea in reality, with the average person. Otherwise, it stays as theory.

But, as I posted above, when people start screaming and cursing at me, I lose interest. I'm not your enemy, although you may see me as such. I'm actually someone you'd want to convince you're right, since I sit on the fence in regards to this issue. But getting angry doesn't win my agreement, it simply turns me away from any interesting conversation.

Have a good evening.

also.

So a bunch of students carrying guns is about as stupid a solution as anyone has ever envisioned.

These kinds of situations are beyond rational thinking - you're assuming everyone involved is rational and you know that at least one person isn't.

I can't explain it better or make you see it in an Internet forum post or 20 posts.

And there would be several hundred incidents a year.

NRA ideology includes two fascinating bits of wishful thinking:

a) On the individual level, the good guy always draws first.

b) On the political level, armed mobs of present-day Americans will know exactly when constitutionalism has devolved into tyranny; instead of joining the fascist side as obedient cogs, they will successfully act to overthrow tyranny; defeating the state's police forces and armies if necessary. Cos it's all about the Minutemen, you know?

1. Nobody is advocating that everyone carry a weapon at all times. Only people who can pass the requirements to get the permit, who really want to carry a weapon, and who are willing to take on the tremendous responsibility it carries.

2. Take a course in defensive handgun and see for yourself what people are actually being taught. I guarantee it will diverge significantly from your obvious preconceived ideas.

3. See Nabeshin's reply #14.

It's the people "who really want to carry a weapon" who worry me. I'm sure they "are willing to take on the tremendous responsibility."

I don't want to take a course, since I don't want a handgun and I prefer it when no one else around me has one either.

I'm sure what people "are actually being taught" is very responsible, and probably does not diverge from my ideas of it. However, this says nothing about what they will actually do.

It only takes one mistake or a moment's passion to cross the line into tragedy.

If liberalized concealed carry was subject to the problems you are worried about, it would be pretty obvious by now in crime statistics. It's been in place in most states for more than a decade now.

I love this graphic, if only for the URL:

And what the numbers are for gun deaths and for violent crimes in Europe, as opposed to the US.

Obviously you love your firearms. You're probably a responsible owner, good for you. Doesn't really change that since most people are idiots, I prefer it when they don't have guns.

Please don't try to put thoughts in my head, based on your preconceived ideas. It gets pretty old on these forums.

It doesn't matter what a European map would look like. This is the USA, and unless you can show a real connection between liberalized issuance (shall-issue) concealed weapons permits and ABUSE of lawfully carried concealed weapons, you have no point to make here.

"Please don't try to put thoughts in my head, based on your preconceived ideas."

It is not my intention.

I do have some training under my belt, and significant knowledge of firearms and applicable laws.

And what the numbers are for gun deaths and for violent crimes in Europe, as opposed to the US.

Obviously you love your firearms. You're probably a responsible owner, good for you. Doesn't really change that since most people are idiots, I prefer it when they don't have guns.

Can you post any news stories where scenarios like the one in your post played out in reality?

Most people who jump through all the hoops required to get a carry permit are smart enough to only shoot in a situation when they are being directly threatened and they have a positive identification of their target.

will go look for it. but was there not an incident where a CCW holder tried to shoot an assailant in a restaurant and hit a child instead? maybe 7 years ago?

A veritable flood of blood in the streets.

:eyes:

(the Salt Lake City Mall incident) where someone with a CCW successfully stopped a crowd shooting. one to one.

and you did ask for one situation.

seems a lot of them can't even handle a gun without accidentally firing it....



Delegate's gun fires in legislative office
http://www.timesdispatch.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=RTD%2FMGArticle%2FRTD_BasicArticle&%09s=1045855935264&c=MGArticle&cid=1137833681380&path=!news!politics

...
Reid, who is 63, obtained a concealed-weapon permit two years ago.
...

Secret Service Officers Injured When Gun Misfires
http://www.kwtx.com/home/headlines/7072212.html


Child in Intensive Care After Accidental Shooting By Tennessee Officer
http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/usworld/news-article.aspx?storyid=79729

Retired officer accidently shoots self
http://www.mcall.com/news/local/bethlehem/all-b1_4shooting.5803241apr15,0,634761.story?coll=all-newslocalbethlehem-hed

Lawman cleared of murder rap, shooting “accidental”
http://www.catanduanestribune.com/Mar-21-2007/OtherStory/Detail.aspx?newsID=2478

Girl recovering from accidental shooting by reserve deputy dad
http://www.wate.com/Global/story.asp?S=6342215

Ex-Hunterdon undersherriff gets probation in gun case
http://blog.nj.com/ledgerupdates/2007/03/exhunterdon_undersherriff_gets.html

Ex-cop dies as gun he was cleaning fires
http://www.app.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070327/NEWS03/703270303/1007

Gun goes off in hotel
http://newsminer.com/2007/03/24/6115/

It's not working out too well...

Turns out, it doesn't lead to a polite society....

Thanks for the post...Very Interesting giving clues on how we can defend ourselves very simply.

K&R

That's a pretty cynical adaptation of a cost/benefit analysis.

A threat was perceived, and many wholly innocent people were shot. Ownership of and ability to fire a gun does not prepare you for the situations that police and security forces spend years training for. There is a chance that a tragedy would be stopped, but there is also a chance that something will be misinterpreted and innocent people will die. Again, there's a tradeoff--what makes for the best balance of innocent death?

And keep in mind that the situation all over Iraq is already a lot more tense than anywhere in the USA.

Just saying people without training can misjudge and react tragically to perceived threats. Even -with- training, this still happens frequently enough. Armed with guns, the consequences are more final. I remember a story about a drive by in California wherein two armed citizens returned fire, wounding some innocents in the process. Let me see if I can find it.

That doesn't change the fact that liberalization of permit laws across the nation has not adversely impacted public safety overall. It has given individuals more options in choosing how to protect themselves.

I didn't.

No offense intended here -- just an observation. REALLY great post. Thanks.

Any sugestions?

So join the club. I am too.

That's where I have taken self-defense and weapons training.

It's run by a Scientologist, but they do first-class training without pushing a political agenda or trying to prosylitize you into anything. You will get a lot of marketing mailers from them, but no real hard sell.

I endorse Front Site training. They do a good job of boiling the legal and moral issues down to the least common denominator. If you follow their advice, you should be OK in any state.

http://www.frontsight.com/landingpg.asp?src=gaw&creative=6

not to force every teacher to carry a gun, but as a deterrent, to a gunmen who will then know that every teacher took the test, but don't know which teacher has a gun.

Just thinking outloud..