Interesting article that some won't want to believe as it disproves popular myth.
10 Cases Where An Armed Citizen Stopped An Active Shooter
10 Cases Where An Armed Citizen Stopped An Active Shooter
The armed citizen
- Thread starter LDB
- Start date
This article supports the other argument.
Armed citizens may not stop violence after all
Armed citizens may not stop violence after all
Last edited:
dalejrroks
Active Expediter
The second article actually supports both sides.
Well, not really.
The second article makes a couple of good points and misrepresents a couple of others. First of all, no matter how high the level of training and experience with any kind of weapon(s) and defense tactics one is subject to being ambushed in close range or from a distance. Sometimes the best we can hope for is to limit the damage a deranged killer can do, and without the means to do that we're at their mercy.
Secondly, the following statement made in the article is not true:
"The fact is, permission to carry also grants implicit permission to use the gun as one deems necessary. Essentially, we’ve deputized thousands of private citizens without training them."
Anyone who has gone through the process to obtain a concealed carry permit knows full well they don't have permission - implied or otherwise - to use their firearm against another person as they "deem necessary". Those who have CC permits know full well they're limited by the laws of the state they're in at any time in addition to federal laws. In no circumstance can you use your firearm unless you can prove you or others are in a life-threatening situation or are in danger of serious bodily injury. In no way are CC permit holders "deputized" - that's just pure nonsense. In addition, some states don't even recognize CC permits from others and don't allow people from outside their boundaries to carry weapons.
Of course their points about the need for more and better training and education about gun safety is valid; the same could be said for drivers of trucks and automobiles. Maybe graduated courses in safety and techniques should be required every time a license/permit comes up for renewal.
Secondly, the following statement made in the article is not true:
"The fact is, permission to carry also grants implicit permission to use the gun as one deems necessary. Essentially, we’ve deputized thousands of private citizens without training them."
Anyone who has gone through the process to obtain a concealed carry permit knows full well they don't have permission - implied or otherwise - to use their firearm against another person as they "deem necessary". Those who have CC permits know full well they're limited by the laws of the state they're in at any time in addition to federal laws. In no circumstance can you use your firearm unless you can prove you or others are in a life-threatening situation or are in danger of serious bodily injury. In no way are CC permit holders "deputized" - that's just pure nonsense. In addition, some states don't even recognize CC permits from others and don't allow people from outside their boundaries to carry weapons.
Of course their points about the need for more and better training and education about gun safety is valid; the same could be said for drivers of trucks and automobiles. Maybe graduated courses in safety and techniques should be required every time a license/permit comes up for renewal.
The only 'proof' required is the belief that one is defending oneself or others against great bodily injury or death. A sincere belief [even if completely wrong] is a 'get out of jail free' card.
I don't know how much training is required for a CCW permit, [I suspect it varies by state], but even if it is rigorous - who knows how much of it the permit holder retains, much less augments with continuing practice? Does anyone follow up on that aspect?
I don't know how much training is required for a CCW permit, [I suspect it varies by state], but even if it is rigorous - who knows how much of it the permit holder retains, much less augments with continuing practice? Does anyone follow up on that aspect?
Many train and practice and compete in an ongoing manner. Glock alone conducts 50 matches per year hosting anywhere from a few hundred to over a thousand competitors each. Then there's USPSA, IDPA with 379 clubs in the U.S. and Canada hosting scores of competitions and many other competition organizations hosting matches and training.
No, not everyone trains as much as they should, sort of like drivers and many others who also don't put in as much time and effort as they should. And yeah, it's probably better to ban it all even though it means many more lives lost because those who could and would save them weren't allowed.
No, not everyone trains as much as they should, sort of like drivers and many others who also don't put in as much time and effort as they should. And yeah, it's probably better to ban it all even though it means many more lives lost because those who could and would save them weren't allowed.
That didn't answer the question I asked, Leo. We all know there are many "enthusiasts", but I wonder about those who aren't. Those who got a permit because their life requires them to be in sketchy places from time to time, or those who sometimes transport "high value" items, or even those who just feel safer, knowing they stand a better chance of defending themselves & their loved ones with a weapon than with their bare hands. Does anyone know [or wonder] how many of those people make a sustained effort to retain the knowledge they needed to pass the test, and the skills they learned?
The "saving lives" argument is a loser - many more lives are lost through careless and/or accidental shootings than are saved by deliberate shooting. That's not an argument for banning weapons, but it is an argument that we should be doing something more, or different, IMO.
The "saving lives" argument is a loser - many more lives are lost through careless and/or accidental shootings than are saved by deliberate shooting. That's not an argument for banning weapons, but it is an argument that we should be doing something more, or different, IMO.
Here's an instance where an "armed citizen" could have defended himself against three little thugs who were bored and decided to rob somebody. Now he's dead, leaving a wife and teenage daughter. Of course this hasn't made the national news since maybe "white lives don't matter". Wonder if this will be charged as a hate crime?
It directly answered your question. You wonder how many retain anything. I pointed out specifically how several million are retaining and improving their knowledge. You could be correct that more lives are lost to stupidity and/or criminal misconduct involving firearms than are saved by the deliberate shooting of firearms. Where that falls flat is when "deliberate shooting" of firearms is replaced with the more appropriate "presence" of firearms. In that case there are exponentially more lives saved than lost.
Gun enthusiasts are not the majority of people with carry permits, so no, you didn't answer the question, which was specifically about the average Joe Public: how many of those keep their skills sharp? Or even take periodic refresher courses? Does anyone bother to keep track?
The substitution of "presence" for "deliberate shooting" changes the context of the statement from fact to fantasy. You'd like to think the presence of firearms is a preventative to death, but there's no proof, and no way to get any, so the claims of lives saved are strictly wishful thinking. The lives lost, though, are fact.
The substitution of "presence" for "deliberate shooting" changes the context of the statement from fact to fantasy. You'd like to think the presence of firearms is a preventative to death, but there's no proof, and no way to get any, so the claims of lives saved are strictly wishful thinking. The lives lost, though, are fact.
Well if you are omniscient enough to know what percentage of holders are or are not "gun enthusiasts" then you don't need to ask any questions. In actual fact a very large percentage of those participating in GSSF, IDPA and USPSA are in fact CHL holders who are there specifically to maintain and upgrade their skills. There is no fantasy in the presence of a gun deescalating situations. It may not be reported daily in the MSM but it happens. Read The Armed Citizen in the American Rifleman magazine for multiple stories of just that happening.
In IDPA alone, membership was listed at the end of 2014 at exceeding 25,000 and growing at about 900 new members per month. 83% of these members had concealed carry permits. In this day and age, most people who invest $600 on average for a firearm purchase are not going to just put it in a closet and forget about it - they want to take this new "toy" out and learn how to get good at using it, learning a new skill in the process. That's the fun element. It's like a golfer buying a new $600 driver; he's not going to just stick it in the bag with the rest of his clubs and leave it in the garage. The modern firearm owner isn't the same animal as those from 20 years ago.
I never for a moment thought anyone who buys a weapon would put it in a closet and forget it - but I suspect a great many consider an occasional trip to the range sufficient for their needs. Because they don't particularly want to "get good at it", they just want to point & shoot if it ever becomes necessary. It's a defense, not a new hobby, for a lot of people, and it's just a new toy to show off and/or brag about for too many.
The statistics on accidental deaths caused by loaded firearms and the thefts of same are testament to the people who don't take it seriously enough.
The statistics on accidental deaths caused by loaded firearms and the thefts of same are testament to the people who don't take it seriously enough.
Contradictory concepts - you can't "point and shoot" unless you "get good at it". You can't defend yourself with a firearm - especially a handgun - unless you learn how to use it and develop an acceptable level of proficiency.
There are plenty of facilities these days available to firearm owners that want to develop their skills and learn how to defend themselves. Granted there are a lot of people want to show off their new toys, but that also entails being able to display their skills and knowledge of firearms etiquette; otherwise they look stupid to those they wish to impress and will end up getting killed by the very ones whose threats they fear.
There is a definite difference between CHL holders and gun owners. Perhaps it is a failure to distinguish between the two that's causing the problem. Yes, there are many gun owners, just like many animal owners, who bought and own one or both just because they can or maybe it's trendy or whatever. That doesn't mean they are qualified much, or any, beyond their right/privilege to do so. CHL holders on the other hand, similar to many animal rescue pet owners, notice what happened there gun owner/CHL holder and animal owner/ pet owner, are committed and passionate just like animal rescue pet owners. I'm sure there are other comparisons, perhaps even better ones, but this one should work.
jamom123
Expert Expediter
It really baffles me how so many people want to take guns away from law abiding citizens. Its like they don't understand, if you take guns away from law abiding citizens it's not going to stop criminals from getting their hands on guns. Criminals are not law abiding citizens in the first place they are not going through the correct process of buying a gun anyway. You look at some of the places with the strictest gun laws like Chicago for example they have one of the highest crime rates in the country.
Nobody has ever promoted taking away the guns. Restrict access - yes, but actually take them - no.
The American public would never stand for it. Ever your hated liberals.
jamom123
Expert Expediter
Maybe they haven't said it directly, but it is the ultimate plan.