# CCW - where are they



## 1911 friendly (Jun 5, 2011)

All the shootings I hear about - in mall's etc. I seldom hear about the shooter be 'taken' by a CCW person present.


----------



## hillman (Jul 27, 2014)

Probably concerned about being arrested, either as an accomplice (witness confusion) or for 'brandishing' (stupid law interpretation). If you head-butted the perp, the cops would probably impound your head as evidence, following SOP.


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

If you carry, it's for _defense_.
You're not a cop. You have no duty to save other people.
You shoot-to-stop only when you are directly threatened, or your family is.
If you can escape or evade, you do that. You call the cops. And you do your best to be a really good witness.

But the real reason why you don't hear about armed-citizen saves is that the media is generally anti-gun.
Publicizing real-life citizen saves would make guns and gun owners look good, and the media doesn't like to do that.


----------



## NGIB (Jun 28, 2008)

+1 to the post above.

Also, the shootings are almost always in gun free zones...


----------



## muckaleewarrior (Aug 10, 2014)

The criminals have been selecting the right people (sheep) generally and in the right places most of the time.


----------



## Smitty79 (Oct 19, 2012)

There was a mall shooting stopped by a guy with a concealed Glock in Oregon 2 years ago.


----------



## PT111Pro (Nov 15, 2014)

Haha -, I just imagine a CHL carrier in a Grocery Store stops a shooter that shoots Customer and Employees in that store. 
If I would pull my weapon out and shot the bastard that robes the store and the bastard was black, the Media would push me, my family and even my friends and co-workers for months through all the TV Stations and call us cold blooded racists. Me, my family, and my friends would loose their jobs, would have move out of their homes and hide in a big city canalization because we would be hunted by from the media and liberal criminal protectors heated and 24/4 news pushed psychopaths. And I am not an LEO, the anti gun lobbyist would kill me with bear hands if they could lay hand on me or one of my family. 
Robbers and looters would again rioting and killing in the streets of my hometown for months and called by liberals peaceful demonstrators, while everyone that speaks up against robbers and killers would be called a racist.
No, no, I protect my family and myself. The others sorry, in this liberalistic political correct insanity have to protect themselves. And I don't believe, based on conversations with other EDC, that others see that a lot different than I do.


----------



## Cait43 (Apr 4, 2013)

1911 friendly said:


> All the shootings I hear about - in mall's etc. I seldom hear about the shooter be 'taken' by a CCW person present.


The reason you seldom hear anything concerning this is the main stream media is not firearms friendly......

Guns and Self Defense -- Gun control proponents cannot deny that people use guns successfully against criminals, but they tend to play down how often such events take place. The below site has an interactive map. The map clearly illustrates, firearms have been used to save lives. Washington should keep this in mind when it considers passing legislation that would make it more difficult for Americans to have access to guns.
Guns and Self Defense | Cato Institute


----------



## SteamboatWillie (Jan 24, 2013)

1911 friendly said:


> All the shootings I hear about - in mall's etc. I seldom hear about the shooter be 'taken' by a CCW person present.


My thoughts on the reason are:

First, the number of people who are licensed to carry concealed represent a single digit percent of the population, and of those people, many probably don't carry religiously.

Second, consider the number of mall shootings per year - also pretty small.

Third, if a legally armed citizen finds himself in that situation, he or she has several options; find good cover/concealment and wait it out, or guide your family to safety by finding the nearest exit, or go seek out and try to stop the threat.

So you have a very small percentage of the population, a very rare occurrence, and a legally armed citizen with multiple choices that don't include trying to aggressively stop an active shooter.

Those are the reasons, IMO, you seldom hear of it. And even given all of the above - it has, does, and will happen from time to time.


----------



## divega (Dec 15, 2014)

we may not be shot off.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

Every month The American Rifleman and First Freedom publish stories of victims using firearms in theirs or others defense. This happens roughly 2.5 million times a year*. Of these incidences, I suspect more than half are not people with "CCW" permits. 

SteamboatWillie posted a very good response in #9 above.


* Estimates range from 800,000 to 2.5 million though no one knows the exact number since many of these encounters go unreported. That plus the fact that frequently as soon as a victim pulls his gun, the perp(s) take off running.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

PT111Pro said:


> Haha -, I just imagine a CHL carrier in a Grocery Store stops a shooter that shoots Customer and Employees in that store.
> If I would pull my weapon out and shot the bastard that robes the store and the bastard was black, the Media would push me, my family and even my friends and co-workers for months through all the TV Stations and call us cold blooded racists. Me, my family, and my friends would loose their jobs, would have move out of their homes and hide in a big city canalization because we would be hunted by from the media and liberal criminal protectors heated and 24/4 news pushed psychopaths. And I am not an LEO, the anti gun lobbyist would kill me with bear hands if they could lay hand on me or one of my family.
> Robbers and looters would again rioting and killing in the streets of my hometown for months and called by liberals peaceful demonstrators, while everyone that speaks up against robbers and killers would be called a racist.
> No, no, I protect my family and myself. The others sorry, in this liberalistic political correct insanity have to protect themselves. And I don't believe, based on conversations with other EDC, that others see that a lot different than I do.


And this is precisely why I purchased a personal liability (umbrella) policy a year and a half ago. After what happened in the Zimmerman case, I wanted protection of my assets. My advice to anyone who believes something like this could happen to them is to purchase such a policy. They're not expensive (mine is $129 a year for a one million dollar policy with unlimited legal fees coverage).


----------



## TAPnRACK (Jan 30, 2013)

Getting involved in a situation that does not DIRECTLY involve you can be dangerous. Say you do decide to play "hero" and get involved in a shootout with a bad guy. LE arrives and has no idea who's who... all they know is they are responding to a shots fired call. They see several people firing guns at each other, you think they will ask who's who? or just end the threat(s)?.

Another consideration is you to go into a store or turn the corner and see one guy shoot another guy... is he a legal CCW carrier foiling a robbery or just a guy engaged in a gun fight with another? Who do you shoot? What's going on? Would you possibly be shooting at an undercover/plain clothes officer?

To many unknowns to get involved and too many dangers imo to play "hero". 

Unless you are DIRECTLY involved in protecting yourself or you family... be the best witness you can, call 911. Observe and describe the bad guy(s)... relay clothing description, height, weight, facial hair, type of weapon, direction of travel, vehicle description and plate if possible. 

Be safe... be smart... live longer.

Your CCW does not deputize you or make you somehow obligated or responsible for getting involved in stopping crimes in progress.


----------



## PT111Pro (Nov 15, 2014)

TAPnRACK said:


> Getting involved in a situation that does not DIRECTLY involve you can be dangerous. Say you do decide to play "hero" and get involved in a shootout with a bad guy. LE arrives and has no idea who's who... all they know is they are responding to a shots fired call. They see several people firing guns at each other, you think they will ask who's who? or just end the threat(s)?.
> 
> Another consideration is you to go into a store or turn the corner and see one guy shoot another guy... is he a legal CCW carrier foiling a robbery or just a guy engaged in a gun fight with another? Who do you shoot? What's going on? Would you possibly be shooting at an undercover/plain clothes officer?
> 
> ...


Absolutely right.

And even if you woulod have that golden bullet, you shoot the killer, end of story. Everyone comes out.

Than the family of the robber will file on you. What do you think how big their loss is? They would have to get a job to make a living. Do you know how long it takes to make and feed a child untill it is brutalized enough so it goes out and kills, steals so the entire family can make a living on it? What about Christmas and the guy that you just shot had promised the family a big screen TV. Who is going and steal that for the family now?

And the liberal Judge. What would you answer to the question why you get involved since you was not threatened and you had a way out or you were on a safe hiding place? Did you know that employee that was perhaps threatened by the gun of the robber? Why did you interfere? How did you know that the robber had still ammo in his gun and that he was actually going to shoot furthermore? Did he tell you that he going to kill someone else or are you a mind reader? That can become very fast very ugly.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

Steve M1911A1 said:


> If you carry, it's for _defense_.
> You're not a cop. You have no duty to save other people.
> You shoot-to-stop only when you are directly threatened, or your family is.
> If you can escape or evade, you do that. You call the cops. And you do your best to be a really good witness.
> ...


Could not agree more. Don't try to be a hero! That will get you killed, and my wife/children would really rather have/need me than someone who has no clue who I am. We do have the right to defend 3rd party, but the truth is these things usually play out so fast we have no way to observe to know what is happening. It's over before you know it, and the last thing you want to do is get in the middle of a fight btwn others and then shoot the wrong one.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

GCBHM said:


> Could not agree more. Don't try to be a hero! That will get you killed, and my wife/children would really rather have/need me than someone who has no clue who I am. We do have the right to defend 3rd party, but the truth is these things usually play out so fast we have no way to observe to know what is happening. It's over before you know it, and the last thing you want to do is get in the middle of a fight btwn others and then shoot the wrong one.


My only problem here is seeing a disjoint between this and the notion that if more people CCW'ed in schools it would reduce the number of incidents or fatalities...


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

SailDesign said:


> My only problem here is seeing a disjoint between this and the notion that if more people CCW'ed in schools it would reduce the number of incidents or fatalities...


Well, it's simple really. If someone is commissioned to defend a school then it would be their duty to do so, but the point is that those who perpetrate such crimes typically do not do so where the propencity exists for others to carry guns. If it was a known fact that gun carry was legal in schools, you would not see too many schools being shot up.

The truth is we don't see too many malls being the scene of shootings. I know the media sensationalizes when it does happen to blow things out of proportion, but how many malls do you hear about being the scene of a shooting compared to a school? I would also be willing to bet that the malls that have been scene to mass shootings were designated "gun free zones". What the bigger truth is, is that the media is just not telling us when a good guy with a gun stops a bad guy with a gun, and they often distort the facts to fit their gun control agenda. They cite statistical "facts" about "gun violence" but do not tell you they are including all shootings such as legal defense, suicide, etc. They are not telling the whole truth.

We recently saw an article in here where some liberal was trying to be objective, but clearly proved he wasn't. Anyone who uses terms like "gun violence", "assault weapons", "handgun problem", and the like completely identify themselves as idiots who have no real clue what they are talking about, and further prove they are clearly slanted toward anti-gun movements.

Another truth is that falls kill tens of thousands more than gun do every year. Why don't we hear about that? That's b/c it isn't about making society safer, it's about controlling society, and the gun control idiots are just too daft to see it.


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

I have mixed feelings about this. No, I would not want to pretend or play the role of a cop. Or deal with the legal ramifications or get myself killed. But wonder if I could just stand by and do nothing if I were to witness someone being brutally raped or murdered knowing that I had the ability or means to put an end to it. Or stumble upon the beginnings of a mass shooting. After all that could be my wife, a member of my family or close personal friend. More than likely by the time the police arrived the victim(s) would probably be dead. I've never been in that type of situation and hope to Christ that I never will be. I just do not know what I would do? Except pray to God that it never happens.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

Well, the likelihood of you ever witnessing someone be brutally raped is very slim, but I do agree that it would be hard to sit idly by. The issue is whether or not you're in the position to do something about it with the knowledge that you would be shooting the right person. That is a huge risk! There are some scenarios where it is pretty cut and dry. There are some others where it isn't so clear who is the actual bad guy. 

There was a story not too long ago where a hero wannabe witnessed a mugging in which a young mother was stabbed, and instead of tending to her, this fool gives chase to the mugger. Well, it ended up costing him is life, and his wife said something that I thought was telling. "He always wanted to be the hero." Well, what did it get him? He did nothing to help the victim, and got himself killed as the result. If he had caught and killed the bad guy, he would have gone to jail b/c he had no business giving chase like that. 

I've thought of this myself, and I don't know what I'd do either, so I pray that it never happens.


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

GCBHM:


> Well, the likelihood of you ever witnessing someone be brutally raped is very slim, but I do agree that it would be hard to sit idly by.


Agree with your post 100%. None of us in all probability will ever be in that situation we can all be thankful for that. However it is something that anyone who chooses to carry a gun should think about.


----------



## SteamboatWillie (Jan 24, 2013)

GCBHM said:


> Well, the likelihood of you ever witnessing someone be brutally raped is very slim, but I do agree that it would be hard to sit idly by.


That reminds me of a very telling shoot/no shoot scenario.

You are leaving a convenience store and proceed around the corner of the building. There you see a ragged looking man straddling a women with his gun pointed at her. She is yelling "help! He's going to kill me!"

How do you respond? Remember, no time to think, you're carrying a concealed firearm.

What you DON'T know Of course is that guy is undercover LEO, trying to arrest a woman who was smoking crack behind a car.

That's a very sobering thought for anyone who instantly thought about shooting to "save the victim", or even drawing down on the guy with the gun. Remember, he doesn't know who you are either.

I suggest that before anyone intercedes in a violent encounter, you are very sure you understand what's really happening. Things aren't always what they seem.

Just another tidbit from the "stray thoughts dept."


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

In that scenario, the time of day would be most telling. Most rapes are not perpetrated in a location like that in the mid-day sun, and if it is a cop, he will most likely identify himself as such immediately, but I think it is a good example. You never know if you will run up on something like that that "never happens".


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

SteamboatWilie:


> I suggest that before anyone intercedes in a violent encounter, you are very sure you understand what's really happening. Things aren't always what they seem.


Sound advice! We went over this in our concealed weapons class. The hard part is what if the person was indeed an innocent person about to lose their life? Having never been in that situation I can honestly say I do not know how I would respond. I only know how I would respond if it were my own life or that of a loved one at stake.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

desertman said:


> I have mixed feelings about this. No, I would not want to pretend or play the role of a cop. Or deal with the legal ramifications or get myself killed. But wonder if I could just stand by and do nothing if I were to witness someone being brutally raped or murdered knowing that I had the ability or means to put an end to it. Or stumble upon the beginnings of a mass shooting. After all that could be my wife, a member of my family or close personal friend. More than likely by the time the police arrived the victim(s) would probably be dead. I've never been in that type of situation and hope to Christ that I never will be. I just do not know what I would do? Except pray to God that it never happens.


I agree with you about this but I would add one important thing to it. If you believe you know beyond a doubt who the perp(s) and the victim(s) are then take whatever action you deem necessary if you are of a mind to do this.

However, if there is some gray area about what you are seeing, then best not to do anything yourself other than calling the police. We can all imagine what sort of scenarios this might be: lover's quarrels, undercover LEO arresting a perp, victim getting the best of an attacker, etc.

So if you are certain in your mind that your actions to aid someone are on solid ground, then the decision is yours to take. Otherwise I would be most reluctant to interfere.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

GCBHM said:


> Well, the likelihood of you ever witnessing someone be brutally raped is very slim, but I do agree that it would be hard to sit idly by. The issue is whether or not you're in the position to do something about it with the knowledge that you would be shooting the right person. That is a huge risk! There are some scenarios where it is pretty cut and dry. There are some others where it isn't so clear who is the actual bad guy.
> 
> There was a story not too long ago where a hero wannabe witnessed a mugging in which a young mother was stabbed, and instead of tending to her, this fool gives chase to the mugger. Well, it ended up costing him is life, and his wife said something that I thought was telling. "He always wanted to be the hero." Well, what did it get him? He did nothing to help the victim, and got himself killed as the result. If he had caught and killed the bad guy, he would have gone to jail b/c he had no business giving chase like that.
> 
> *I've thought of this myself, and I don't know what I'd do either, so I pray that it never happens.*


Amen, don't we all.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

desertman said:


> GCBHM:
> 
> Agree with your post 100%. None of us in all probability will ever be in that situation we can all be thankful for that. However it is something that anyone who chooses to carry a gun should think about.


Yes sir, as well as think about any and every possible bad situation you can muster up in your mind. Sitting at a red light and suddenly getting attacked by a couple of carjackers, walking into a store where a robbery is unfolding, drive-by shootings, you name it. Playing what if games is one of the primary tools I used when teaching my wife and daughters how to operate a motor vehicle. They work just as well for those of us who carry... and even for those who don't.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

desertman said:


> SteamboatWilie:
> 
> Sound advice! We went over this in our concealed weapons class. The hard part is what if the person was indeed an innocent person about to lose their life? Having never been in that situation I can honestly say I do not know how I would respond. *I only know how I would respond if it were my own life or that of a loved one at stake.*


Not to be a butthead, but do you really know? Have you ever had to use your gun in yours or someone else's defense?

Once again, please don't think I am being an a--hole but I am a firm believer in the theory that no one actually knows how they are going to react or what they're going to do in an extreme encounter until if is facing them like RIGHT NOW... unless you have past experience in a similar situation or situations from which to draw upon.


----------



## PT111Pro (Nov 15, 2014)

GCBHM said:


> In that scenario, the time of day would be most telling. Most rapes are not perpetrated in a location like that in the mid-day sun, and if it is a cop, he will most likely identify himself as such immediately, but I think it is a good example. You never know if you will run up on something like that that "never happens".


Not jet in the US. I'll see the US in the stage of Europe 1996-97. In the early 2000 especially christion or white womans get raped on bright day light and everyone runs away. 
Liberal justis systems protect rapist which had 180 rapes in public but never had seen a day in a jail, because they are muslims (over there the highly protected species) and the Europeans have to understand that they are different in culture.

A murderer in the TV or Newspaper get played by a Actor and the criminals Name is changing all of a sudden from Ali Ecytrug to Manfred Miller. Other storries are just free invented and true movie scenes. But get handled by liberals as real happen. Well they saw it on TV right and politicians, Berluskoni or Mrs. Merkel will not lie. Right?
If you help the rape victim while the girl is gang raped, you could go very fast in Jail, because you have accelerated the danger and it was after all not in your business what happen.
That comes here too.
BTW I can prove what I say with a ton of links.
If someone want to know how that works in a so called humanistic, liberal society don't have to believe me, just go to Politically Incorrect ? English Version . That is in english the more international page. But is already a start.
Criminals learn very fast when they get protected by politics and media, they don't hide from police as soon they realize that the police can't do anything. Or do you think the police in Ferguson will ever again stop a black murderer and carrier criminal? Dream on.

And by the way, Obama had pronounced anyway that the police in the US will become new training. I guess they couldn't do there job and need to know how to respond to 911 calls when the protected once are involved.

Watching rapes and killings. You better get used to it. Look across the Atlantic how they have done it. They are only 10 years ahead of the US with their so called human / liberalism and the Clinton Lady said in London, she can equalize the difference in the first 4 years once elected. Over there the Muslims the protected ones. They don't have not enough criminal real Africans over there.


----------



## tony pasley (May 6, 2006)

A few things to consider. If it is a perfectly righteous shoot expect at least $1,000 in lawyers fees, them holding your pistol 30 days to when ever, next is the media, it gets worse if it is a minority or different race from you. The poor misguided boy who was never in trouble before and they post pics from confirmation or graduation all neat and clean, then comes the civil suits for wrongful death. The other things to consider is the person a gangbanger and will they want retaliation. There is a good likely hood you may need to move to a new town or state. The other thing that can happen is you lose your carry pistol due to it being a expensive or rare, like a friend who is still trying to recover a 1927 Colt from stopping a robbery and never fired a shot.


----------



## SteamboatWillie (Jan 24, 2013)

SouthernBoy said:


> Not to be a butthead, but do you really know? Have you ever had to use your gun in yours or someone else's defense?
> 
> Once again, please don't think I am being an a--hole but I am a firm believer in the theory that no one actually knows how they are going to react or what they're going to do in an extreme encounter until if is facing them like RIGHT NOW... unless you have past experience in a similar situation or situations from which to draw upon.


And that is what I like about shoot/no shoot scenario training. From a simple verbal exchange - someone sets the "scene" by describing the situation, then students respond with what they would likely do.

Or even better, actors in a house/restaurant/store setting where the actor and the student both have simunition arms. Sitting in a restaurant when a bad guy enters to rob the place or sitting in an office when someone bursts in and takes the guy behind the desk into another room and orders you to stay seated. Do what you believe is right... and see if you get "shot" or prevail.

I'm fortunate to live near a training facility that does this type of training combined with other live fire training and drills.

Certainly nothing like real life, but it sure makes one think...


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

All of this reminds of why I do not carry. 

God bless those of you that do - but it isn't for me.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

PT111Pro said:


> Not jet in the US. I'll see the US in the stage of Europe 1996-97. In the early 2000 especially christion or white womans get raped on bright day light and everyone runs away.
> Liberal justis systems protect rapist which had 180 rapes in public but never had seen a day in a jail, because they are muslims (over there the highly protected species) and the Europeans have to understand that they are different in culture.
> 
> A murderer in the TV or Newspaper get played by a Actor and the criminals Name is changing all of a sudden from Ali Ecytrug to Manfred Miller. Other storries are just free invented and true movie scenes. But get handled by liberals as real happen. Well they saw it on TV right and politicians, Berluskoni or Mrs. Merkel will not lie. Right?
> ...


You won't see many rapes on the street in broad day light.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

SailDesign said:


> All of this reminds of why I do not carry.
> 
> God bless those of you that do - but it isn't for me.


The thing that I remind myself of is something my father taught me years ago. Keep a low profile, avoid trouble, and then mind your own business. I carry b/c I don't want to be defenseless. Even if you do carry, and you're attacked, you're a victim, so you have less control over that than you do over taking a stand, but at least if you are armed you have a fighting chance. I'm not here to save the world, and I will walk away if I can. I've got nothing to prove to some fool with a cause, but if I am backed into a corner, you bet your ass I'm going to fight.


----------



## SteamboatWillie (Jan 24, 2013)

SailDesign said:


> All of this reminds of why I do not carry.
> 
> God bless those of you that do - but it isn't for me.


Very understandable. That's most people's opinion.

In my case, I've already had one (what I consider to be) close encounter that was diffused because the suspected BG thought I was armed. He changed his mind and left.

That one incident justified, to me, the time and expense I've spent on handgun training. I'm old and just want to be left alone, but I feel better knowing that I have a good chance defending myself and family if needed.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

GCBHM said:


> The thing that I remind myself of is something my father taught me years ago. Keep a low profile, avoid trouble, and then mind your own business. I carry b/c I don't want to be defenseless. Even if you do carry, and you're attacked, you're a victim, so you have less control over that than you do over taking a stand, but at least if you are armed you have a fighting chance. I'm not here to save the world, and I will walk away if I can. I've got nothing to prove to some fool with a cause, but if I am backed into a corner, you bet your ass I'm going to fight.


A saying I learned just a few years ago but have been doing it since I was young. "Don't go to stupid places with stupid people and do stupid things". Sounds like sage advice to me.


----------



## PT111Pro (Nov 15, 2014)

I can only say, be very careful when you defend others than yourself. Best is you do it at all if you don't want to end up in a federal prison or hunted by liberal medias like an animal (Zimmerman, Ferguson).


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

SailDesign said:


> My only problem here is seeing a disjoint between this [that one should shoot only in self-defense] and the notion that if more people CCW'ed in schools it would reduce the number of incidents or fatalities...


There's a huge difference between the obligations of an armed private citizen out shopping (or sipping a cup of hot chocolate in Sydney) with his wife, and the duties of an armed schoolteacher in his/her classroom.
Moral responsibilities aside, the ordinary citizen hasn't even a legal responsibility to defend his wife, while even an unarmed teacher (or school administrator) has the legal responsibility to defend the children in his/her class (or school), and to keep them from harm as best as possible.

While an armed citizen need only retreat and evade if at all possible, the schoolteacher, armed or not, doesn't have that option. There's no place to retreat to, and the whole classroom-full of kids would have to somehow come along.

Can you envision, by the way, the difference between a locked-down classroom in which all of the occupants are cowering helplessly together, and a locked-down classroom in which the children cower while the armed (and ready) teacher stands guard in a tactically secure position?
Which option would you choose for your child, if there were a Newtown-like incident in his/her school?

_Thought Experiment:_
Let's postulate a classroom shootout between an invading nut-case and an armed teacher.
During this shootout, 10 of the 20 kids in the room are killed by the nut-case's gunfire, before the armed teacher finally kills him.
Now, at Newtown, at least one entire classroom-full of kids was massacred. But in our example, half of the kids are saved.
Let's postulate further that your child is one of the 10 dead kids.
How do you feel about there having been an armed teacher?


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

SailDesign said:


> My only problem here is seeing a disjoint between this and the notion that if more people CCW'ed in schools it would reduce the number of incidents or fatalities...


The situation in a school, in particular an elementary school, is somewhat unique in that it is a controlled environment. By that I mean students are usually in classes with teachers holding forth. It's not random like a shopping mall or other places that can get crowded in the general public. Therefore, if an "active shooter" (have to wonder about that term) enters the school to do evil, there is a greater chance that he is going to be easier to identify IF there are people in the school looking for this.

I am in favor of armed personal in schools who have good training. not just in shooting skills but also in identification and awareness skills. Yes, these people could be teachers. They could also be local citizens who may be retired and have experience and this sort of training (police, some members of the military, private citizens, etc.). I don't have any children in school but I do have three grandchildren who are in school. Their safety transcends any ludicrous notions that guns should not be in school. The last thing I would want is a free fire zone and that is exactly what schools are.

Sandy Hook, Virginia Tech, Columbine... they all boil my blood when I think that this sort of thing could have been avoided had we not allowed those in power to sacrifice their lives on the alter of an agenda. It will continue to happen until we wise up. The very people who scream "No guns on school property" are the same types who set the stage that this might take place. When I was in grade school (the 50's) I never recall hearing of anything like this taking place. And believe me, if it had we would have known about it because it would have been so unusual and rare. We got to this point for a reason and unless we make some serious alterations, it's going to continue to happen.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

Steve M1911A1 said:


> There's a huge difference between the obligations of an armed private citizen out shopping
> <huge-ass snip>
> 
> How do you feel about there having been an armed teacher?


I'm not talking about people with guns in schools for the purpose of defending if needed. I'm talking about the theory that if more parents, etc. were allowed to CCW in schools (i.e. notr a gun-free zone at all) then BGs would think twice. Different situation.

I don't know how I feel about teachers with guns,.. At all. I've seen people at the range who bought a gun "for protection" aiming at life-size BG targets at 5 yards, and still hitting blank space over his shoulder (after weeks of practice, mind you). If that kind of accuracy were practiced in the classroom I have little hope for the kids.

Just. Don't. Know.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

But think about this, Sail. Having a fighting chance, an opportunity to return fire, is always better than being a sitting duck just waiting to die. I too, have seen people at a range who just could not seem to master the most rudimentary skills... but not many of these people. I used to joke about the fellow who goes out and buys a handgun because he is concerned about rising crime, gets it home, takes it out and examines it a little, dry fires it a few times, then puts it on the top shelf of his closet where it sits for maybe years. This is the sort who, if the time ever comes that he needs to call on his gun, is an accident waiting to happen.

In the South I would wager there are a lot more teachers who are gun people than up where you live so their familiarity with firearms gives them quite an edge. There are simple answers to this. it's just that we have all been conditioned not to consider them. And more kids will die because we'd rather poke our heads in the sand than hit the problem head on.


----------



## NGIB (Jun 28, 2008)

Gun free zones are targets - plain and simple. The bad guys know that the good guys (that follow the law) won't be armed so they're free to do whatever they want to do. I would have no problem with armed teachers as long as they were required to demonstrate proficiency with their guns now and again. I'm hoping campus carry will pass here in GA soon - the campuses in downtown Atlanta are currently hunting grounds for the bad guys...


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

NGIB said:


> Gun free zones are targets - plain and simple. The bad guys know that the good guys (that follow the law) won't be armed so they're free to do whatever they want to do. I would have no problem with armed teachers as long as they were required to demonstrate proficiency with their guns now and again. I'm hoping campus carry will pass here in GA soon - the campuses in downtown Atlanta are currently hunting grounds for the bad guys...


Yep. And I agree that there are a lot of concerns about arming teachers; how they would carry, an danger of leaving their firearm in a purse of briefcase, etc. But this goes along with training and creating that mindset of awareness and not being cavalier about their arms.


----------



## PT111Pro (Nov 15, 2014)

@ Southernboy,
A person, any person that let a firearm just laying around or unatended in a purse or briefcase is more dangerous than a armed robber. Just imagine children could get the teachers gun and horseplay with that gun in the classroom or hallways. Brrrrrr..... I know some school teachers (friends of my wife) but some of them with a weapon, would be dangerous. They would kill themselves sooner or later. There is for some people a reason why they became teachers to rule little kids,or become social workers, believe me.


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

Let the teachers/administration have the option of being armed with one stipulation that it must be concealed and worn on their person. Just because they are teachers they should not be denied the right to bear arms.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

SailDesign said:


> I'm not talking about people with guns in schools for the purpose of defending if needed. I'm talking about the theory that if more parents, etc. were allowed to CCW in schools (i.e. notr a gun-free zone at all) then BGs would think twice. Different situation.
> 
> I don't know how I feel about teachers with guns,.. At all. I've seen people at the range who bought a gun "for protection" aiming at life-size BG targets at 5 yards, and still hitting blank space over his shoulder (after weeks of practice, mind you). If that kind of accuracy were practiced in the classroom I have little hope for the kids.
> 
> Just. Don't. Know.


I definitely think any law abiding citizen should be allowed to carry their guns in schools, but think for a second. What time of day do most school shooting occur? Normally after normal operations have begun, when parents are not there. Most of the time, parents don't go into the schools except for special events or to check their kid out/drop them off, so the frequency of a parent being in school with a gun is going to be low.

With regard to teachers with guns, it shouldn't be a big deal. All schools should have a plan to deal with active shooters, and all teachers could just lock their respective classrooms down, and stand guard with their gun, if they are carrying one. There should really be no need to have anyone tasked with actively seeking the shooter. If the schools would just have a plan to lock everything down with designated people standing guard with guns in the case the shooter came their way, the shooter would eventually be dealt with either by a defender or the police. The point, at least in my mind, would be to defend, not go looking for the shooter. That alone would send the message to anyone thinking about doing something like that that they would be met with a defense.

You're not going to stop all violence, but you can curtail it with plans like this.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

desertman said:


> Let the teachers/administration have the option of being armed with one stipulation that it must be concealed and worn on their person. Just because they are teachers they should not be denied the right to bear arms.


Exactly right! Train for a plan, and anyone who does not want to carry a gun does not have to, but if they want to be responsible enough to get training to know how to use the weapon, they should be allowed to carry it, just like anyone else.


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

GCBHM:


> The point, at least in my mind, would be to defend, not go looking for the shooter.


Great point! Looking for the shooter would be setting themselves up for an ambush. Better to take cover and let the shooter come to them, then the element of surprise would be on the side of the defender. I have to laugh when people suggest that the gun would be in a briefcase or a locker. What good would that do? First it could be accessible to others. Second it would have to be retrieved in case of an emergency. If one chooses to carry, it means just that to carry. It should also be concealed so no one will know whether the teacher is armed or not. Having it concealed also reduces the likelihood of it being taken away. As the potential "taker" would not know where the gun is concealed on the wearer.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

PT111Pro said:


> @ Southernboy,
> A person, any person that let a firearm just laying around or unatended in a purse or briefcase is more dangerous than a armed robber. Just imagine children could get the teachers gun and horseplay with that gun in the classroom or hallways. Brrrrrr..... I know some school teachers (friends of my wife) but some of them with a weapon, would be dangerous. They would kill themselves sooner or later. There is for some people a reason why they became teachers to rule little kids,or become social workers, believe me.


Agree. That's why I used the word, "cavalier". You can't be cavalier when you have a firearm on or about your person or within your control.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

desertman said:


> GCBHM:
> 
> Great point! Looking for the shooter would be setting themselves up for an ambush. Better to take cover and let the shooter come to them, then the element of surprise would be on the side of the defender. I have to laugh when people suggest that the gun would be in a briefcase or a locker. What good would that do? First it could be accessible to others. Second it would have to be retrieved in case of an emergency. If one chooses to carry, it means just that to carry. It should also be concealed so no one will know whether the teacher is armed or not. Having it concealed also reduces the likelihood of it being taken away. As the potential "taker" would not know where the gun is concealed on the wearer.


Exactly. I also don't agree with the school of thought that all guns should be locked up in a safe where no one can get to them. I don't think loaded guns should be left lying around, mind you, but I believe that if you're going to have guns in the house, then everyone should be trained properly. Let's be real here. What's more dangerous? A kid who has been trained how to use firearms properly, or a kid who knows that guns are in the house but has absolutely no clue what to do with one? How many times have we heard stories where a 14 year old fended off an aggressor to save themselves or other family members? Could they be able to do that if they did not have access to a gun and not trained how to use it properly?

I believe in education, training and accountability, and when those things are done well, everyone is safer. It is when children are left to their own devices that bad things happen. And if you think that just b/c your guns are locked up in a safe that the kids won't get them out...you're a fool. Of course, keep the guns put up in a safe place where small children cannot get to them. By all means, don't ever leave a loaded gun out where a small child can get to it. But for the love of God, if you have a gun in the house, then be responsible enough to educate and train everyone who lives there properly, and hold them accountable to that.


----------



## Cait43 (Apr 4, 2013)

1911 friendly said:


> All the shootings I hear about - in mall's etc. I seldom hear about the shooter be 'taken' by a CCW person present.


Red Lobster Thief Foiled by Concealed-Carrier


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

Not only was the thief foiled by the concealed-weapon guy, but the concealed-weapon guy was in the process of doing the right thing: He was, as Snaggletooth used to say, "exiting, stage left."
He wasn't trying to play junior-G-Man by stopping the robbery-in-progress.

That red lobster must've been mighty happy...that is, until he was served with drawn butter and parsley.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

I first saw the title and the word "Thief" and knew there was really no danger with this. Then I saw the word "robber" and everything changed. There is a big difference between a thief and a robber.

Nevertheless were I to be present during a robbery, I believe I would try to be a very good witness UNLESS things turned ugly. If the robber(s) start pointing their weapons at customers, start herding people into some enclosure, demand that you lay on the floor or stand against a wall with your face up the to wall... All of these are bad signs that the potential of something really bad is about to take place. Notice I said potential, not certainly.

I well recall a robbery at a Roy Rogers Restaurant in Fairfax/Alexandria in the spring of 1976* and I do not wish to go that route. So a robber who rushes in, intimates that he is armed, gets the cash, and rushes back out is not going to get a response from me other than my statements to the police. But one that starts to do what I have outlined above is going to get me thinking of ways to get to my firearm and use it.

* 10 Murder Trials


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

I should add something to what I wrote about above concerning the Roy Rogers murders. That particular Roy Rogers was in the parking lot of the grocery store where I shopped every week when these murders took place. Kinda brings things home when it's that close.


----------



## VAMarine (Dec 25, 2008)

Not an Active Killer scenario, but armed citizen at the mall none the less:

* Police: Man killed Middletown teen at Dayton Mall in self defense - Story*



> The juvenile wasn't able to get in line in time or whatever to get some of these shoes," Miami Twp. police Sgt. Jay Phares said. So Jabbar went outside to the sidewalk and pulled a gun on a man who had just bought the shoes, Phares said.
> Only, the man had a gun, too.
> 
> "The person who he tried to take the shoes from had a valid carry concealed weapon permit through Ohio, and when he was threatened with a firearm he drew his firearm and discharged it into the juvenile, who then died as a result of a single gunshot wound,"


----------



## PT111Pro (Nov 15, 2014)

I can only warn everyone that gonna use a gun to defend.

Only self defense and only if someone can prove airtight that s/he was already almost death when used a gun for self defense. If you defend someone else than yourself, your spouse or child, a liberal judge would ask you why it is in your business and if you are a mind reader to know what the attacker thought. In Europe that is already daily court practice since the minimum the last 5 years. 

In a Land that not even a police officer can defend themselves, without get now in this society legally hunted by liberals and their media like an animal wherever they go (btw do you know where and how the Wilson family lives at christmas?). When the liberals with their media are able to do police manhunts covered by governments throughout a entire nation, what do you think will happen when a private person (worst scene scenario a white male) defends itself or his/her child against a robber? 

If you want to know than make a trip to Ferguson and ask the people there whom the national guard protected against whom and why. It would be a interesting discovery - promise. And the liberal leaders called that deescalation tactics. Means let the criminals do whatever they want, killing is OK to as long a white person gets one by one killed. The Goldberg lady this morning in her hate show "The View", still does hate speeches against the Wilson family, and still calls people to do manhunt. No not in this words but she calls it injustice and ask someone to make it just (whatever she meant by that). Interesting enough that she still is allowed to do that. I just thing Bill O'Rylli would do that, the liberals would nuke the entire town where O'Reylli lives. But Goldberg can do hate-speeches, just like that. 

But like some said. They took one of us, we take 2 of theirs. And the liberals find again and again excuses over excuses and tell us over and over again why it not happen what we see.

Be careful when using a weapon in self defence and don't trust any given law. A liberal just don't care about any law when a greater good, their greater good is involved.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

PT111Pro said:


> I can only warn everyone that gonna use a gun to defend.
> Only self defense and only if someone can prove airtight that s/he was already almost death when used a gun for self defense. If you defend someone else than yourself, your spouse or child, a liberal judge would ask you why it is in your business and if you are a mind reader to know what the attacker thought. In Europe that is already daily court practice since the minimum the last 5 years.
> In a Land that not even a police officer can defend themselves, without get now in this society legally hunted by liberals and their media like an animal wherever they go (btw do you know where and how the Wilson family lives at christmas?). When the liberals with their media are able to do police manhunts covered by governments throughout a entire nation, what do you think will happen when a private person (worst scene scenario a white male) defends itself or his/her child against a robber? If you want to know than make a trip to Ferguson and ask the people there whom the national guard protected against whom and why. It would be a interesting discovery - promise. And the liberal leaders called that deescalation tactics. Means let the criminals do whatever they want, killing is OK to as long a white person gets one by one killed. The Goldberg lady this morning in her hate show "The View", still does hate speeches against the Wilson family, and still calls people to do manhunt. No not in this words but she calls it injustice and ask someone to make it just (whatever she meant by that). Interesting enough that she still is allowed to do that. I just thing Bill O'Rylli would do that, the liberals would nuke the entire town where O'Reylli lives. But Goldberg can do hate-speeches, just like that.
> But like some said. They took one of us, we take 2 of theirs. And the liberals find again and again excuses over excuses and tell us over and over again why it not happen what we see.
> ...


This really is not true, especially in gun friendly states. You do not have to prove airtight that you were near death to defend yourself or another with a gun. Actually, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you were not in danger, not just for your life, but bodily harm. Danger does not mean only death, and it doesn't matter what some talk show host says. The media did its dead level best to prosecute Darren Wilson for shooting Mike Brown, but the truth prevailed. The media did its best to convict George Zimmerman, but the jury acquitted.

There are also stories almost daily where a gun owner defended themselves and/or others third party, and are not even charged with a homicide. The burden of proof is on the state, not the individual. Whoopi Goldberg is an idiot, and so is Rosie O'donnell, but they have no influence over mainstream America. That does not mean we don't need to be damn careful in the use of our firearms in defense, but we don't need to walk around in fear either. Otherwise, just leave it at home.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

PT111Pro said:


> <HUGE snip!>
> A liberal just don't care about any law when a greater good, their greater good is involved.


----------



## Cait43 (Apr 4, 2013)

There is no definitive definition of liberal, conservative, left, right, republican, 2nd amendment supporter, etc., etc............


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

Cait43 said:


> There is no definitive definition of liberal, conservative, left, right, republican, 2nd amendment supporter, etc., etc............


Merriam-Webster and the Oxford English Dictionary might dispute that. PT111Pro seems to use it in place of "communist" all the time - wrongly.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

Mall shooting over athletic shoes robbery attempt | WDTN


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

For the psychological benefit of *SailDesign* and all all you other Liberals out there, I have switched to "Progressive" instead.
But please note that *L*iberal does have a generally-accepted political meaning.
It's *l*iberal that is the general term.

(I am a *C*onservative Libertarian, but I am also a *l*iberal.)


----------



## PT111Pro (Nov 15, 2014)

Well SaiDesign. Nice Pic. 
But believe me I know what liberal means. I have seen it in real life action, I have seen people in prison, I have seen people in psychiatric institutions because they didn't agree to liberalism. And yes Obama made just last week a ati Nazi law. Do you know whom they will call NAZI in the US? I have an pretty good Idea, based on experience.

I can show you how that looks like when liberalism finally ends if you want. Just go on youtube type Berlin Wall and see the faces when the people can just walk out on liberalism. And don't forget, they all voted and elected their liberalism because they also believed that they finally have the first and true real liberalism on earth. 

And never forget people fight for liberalism until they finally have it and than they regret ever being born. Than they say no, No that is not what I meant. Well - bu they supported it and didn't care what liberalism meant by the liberal leaders. Franco in Spainm said, "Is it my fault when they dream unreal daydreams"? Franco was one of the liberal leaders in Spain in the 1920-1945.

I know what liberalism is, have seen it in the USSR, DDR, Czechoslovakian-Republic and former Yugoslavia. I know what Liberalism means and what that really is. And I know you know it better, then your private liberalism is different than all the liberals in the last 4000 Years. I know what Marxism/Leninism/Stalinism/Socialism - National-socialism (Socialism and National Socialism was parallel used in the German 3rd Reich until 1945), Socialism survived until the end of the USSR in the 1990 and became than humanism/liberalism and in 2016 with Clinton than it will be called progressive. 
The names are vary and are different often hidden behind other names but the outcome and the ideology is since Nimroth in 2000 BC still the same. The biggest cup that the Marxist ever landed was to blame the christian conservatives for their liberalism in the 3th Reich (NAZI Germany). The movement was called National Socialist Party of Germany, something conservative or christian was never mentioned. Back than they called them national and meant the entire world. Today they name them self Internationalist and still mean the entire world. 
New names old shoes. To old screamed "Heil Hitler" the new one scream "Yes we can". What is the difference? The name of the Fuehrer? Does the name matter?
You ask if I know liberalism. Yes I do more than I like to know about it.


----------



## PT111Pro (Nov 15, 2014)

Steve M1911A1 said:


> For the psychological benefit of *SailDesign* and all all you other Liberals out there, I have switched to "Progressive" instead.
> But please note that *L*iberal does have a generally-accepted political meaning.
> It's *l*iberal that is the general term.
> 
> (I am a *C*onservative Libertarian, but I am also a *l*iberal.)


I have the same problem. They use the term Liberal a good while now. It looks like they will change when Clinton takes over to progressive. It looks also that the word liberal was taken by their disciples very easily but the word progressive is some kind of slow. It is much better to hide behind the term liberal, with the word progressive they are much more exposed and people start to think about it.


----------



## PT111Pro (Nov 15, 2014)

But I see I get now edited. I have to shut up now.
Have all a Merry Christmas.


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

PT111Pro said:


> But I see I get now edited. I have to shut up now...


Edited.
Not censored.

Although, I have to admit that your English is getting better and better.
The more that you exercise it, the better it gets.

And remember: Paragraphs and punctuation are your friends.

_Fröliche Weihnachten und eine Glüchliches Neujahr!_


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

GCBHM said:


> Mall shooting over athletic shoes robbery attempt | WDTN


I "Liked" this because anyone silly enough to pull a gun in order to steal a pair of freakin' shoes deserves to be removed from the gene pool. I sympathise with his family, and feel their pain - but to die for a pair of shoes? Plain dumb.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

Steve M1911A1 said:


> For the psychological benefit of *SailDesign* and all all you other Liberals out there, I have switched to "Progressive" instead.
> But please note that *L*iberal does have a generally-accepted political meaning.
> It's *l*iberal that is the general term.
> 
> (I am a *C*onservative Libertarian, but I am also a *l*iberal.)


And we thank you for that.


----------



## Goldwing (Nov 5, 2014)

SailDesign said:


> I "Liked" this because anyone silly enough to pull a gun in order to steal a pair of freakin' shoes deserves to be removed from the gene pool. I sympathise with his family, and feel their pain - but to die for a pair of shoes? Plain dumb.


Sail, The die part never crossed his, as you put it "plain dumb" mind. The part that is "plain dumb" is the thought process that took him from having the intent and hopefully the money to purchase a pair of shoes and being disappointed, to the snap decision to threaten a mans life for the shoes. Apparently the thought process had no room for thought of consequences, only that he wanted the shoes and he was going to have them no matter what. Well "No matter what" made him DRT. (dead right there). Too bad he didn't think a little harder.
Goldwing


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

goldwing said:


> Sail, The die part never crossed his, as you put it "plain dumb" mind. The part that is "plain dumb" is the thought process that took him from having the intent and hopefully the money to purchase a pair of shoes and being disappointed, to the snap decision to threaten a mans life for the shoes. Apparently the thought process had no room for thought of consequences, only that he wanted the shoes and he was going to have them no matter what. Well "No matter what" made him DRT. (dead right there). Too bad he didn't think a little harder.
> Goldwing


Yeah - that. My thought was that if you get to the point where you are willing to threaten someone for a pair of shoes, you should ought to realise they might just threaten you back. Harder, because they just paid for those shoes.


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

goldwing said:


> ...Apparently the thought process had no room for thought of consequences, only that he wanted the shoes and he was going to have them no matter what...


This is how an ordinary 'teenager-a "good boy," even-becomes a thug.
In kids, impulses rule. Thoughtful decision-making is a few years away.

This is why parents have to exercise continual oversight and firm control over 'teens.

This kid's parents were blind to what he was doing outside the home and out of their view.
He had a gun. Well, his parents should have known, and should have taken it away from him. But they didn't. So now he's dead.


----------

