Concealed weapon owner confronted Oregon mall shooter

[samiwas]

Originally Posted by SLC Flyfishing

I don't have a CCW permit, nor do I plan on getting one by the way. But I do see their value, in situations like this.

I hate guns. I wish they didn't exist at all, but that's not reality. As much as I hate them, I still see some benefit in concealed-carry for a VERY SMALL percentage of the population. Those who would be highly trained in use or might even have a job related to security/defense. Your story involved an off-duty police officer. Perfectly acceptable. In fact, I might say that all off-duty officers could carry.

What I do NOT understand is the people saying that everyone out there should be armed. It's just not possible to highly train everyone, and not everyone is capable of being highly trained with firearms. And no, I'm not talking about mentally deficient people...I'm talking about some everyday folks. I can think of a lot of friends that I would never, ever want to have armed.

And the last thing we need in some situation is 30 "trained" people to pull out their firearms and start firing upon a possible attacker.

I thoroughly believe that if you arm a crap ton of people, we very well may see mall shoot-ups go down, but that we will see accidental or "heat of the moment" type incidents rise exponentially.

[zhenya]

Originally Posted by prostuff1

Unless a person is so completely out of tune with there surroundings they will always pause for at least a second when they see a gun pointed in there direction.

I have quite a few teacher friends that are horrified by what happened in Conn. and of course the discussion moved to CCW permits, training and the like.

A few of the teachers were hesitant and some would very much appreciate the ability to CC in there classroom and on school premises.

One of the teachers some something to the effect of:
I will say this...if I was allowed to carry in the classroom, the only thing that I would feel as I saw scum like that in my sights would be recoil!

A little dark but very much to the point, and something I happen to agree with.

One of the reports i read was of a 27 year old teacher that locked her kids in a closet or something and when the shooter came by told him they were in the gym. He shoot her and moved on. She saved all those kids lives and she is a hero! I can't help but wonder what would have happened and if she would still be alive had she been able to defend herself and/or kill the gunman.

Those kind of knee-jerk reactions just don't seem to be thought through very thoroughly to me. Really, the solution is to bring LOTS of guns into schools? Now teachers have to ALSO be responsible for managing a loaded gun in a building full of students every day?

Lots of big talk from people after a situation like this, but the unfortunate reality is that few people could actually put a weapon to good use when confronted with someone shooting at them. The example above is ONE example, and a cop, who at least has some reasonable training, to boot. Doesn't add much credibility to the theory in my mind.

[Ugg]

Originally Posted by Happybunny

So basically he did next to nothing, or am I missing something?

He did nothing and the OP's title is extremely misleading. Drawing a gun with no ability to fire it is not a confrontation , although the NRA would like everyone to believe that

[CalWizrd]

Originally Posted by citizenzen

It's not as if we don't know they're "out there".

And one day someone will stop a shooter .. that I'm sure is inevitable.

The question IMO is whether on balance putting more concealed weapons in the hands of more people is a positive or a negative thing.

It is interesting to examine the records of states which have become "shall issue" states ("shall issue" means that unless law enforcement can determine a reason to NOT issue a concealed handgun license, then they shall).

Two states that I am familiar with are Florida and Texas. In both, during the periods when their respective legislatures were considering the "shall issue" change, many opposed claimed that once lots of individuals were carrying concealed, every traffic incident would become a shootout. Of course, after the change, nothing of the sort occurred. I believe that both crime in general and shooting crimes in particular were actually reduced (I don't have the relevant facts and I can't state this for sure, but I believe that was the outcome).

People who go through the state mandated training to acquire a concealed weapon permit are really more responsible and motivated than most. The training received is (at least in my personal experience) more geared towards when NOT to draw a concealed weapon, as well as the terrible implications if one is actually in a situation where you are forced to do so.

Bottom line, this type of training reinforces the heavy responsibility one must be willing to accept if one is to carry a concealed weapon. It does not turn out "cowboys".

[anonymouslurker]

Originally Posted by Ugg

He did nothing and the OP's title is extremely misleading. Drawing a gun with no ability to fire it is not a confrontation , although the NRA would like everyone to believe that

Are you really so close-minded as to not even admit the possibility of the shooter not continuing because he saw someone else with a gun?

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by CalWizrd

Two states that I am familiar with are Florida and Texas.

According to this U.S. Census report, both states are worse than the U.S. average for violent crime.

http://www.census.gov/compendia/stat...es/12s0308.pdf

similar results ...

http://www.infoplease.com/us/statist...ate-state.html

[Happybunny]

Originally Posted by anonymouslurker

Are you really so close-minded as to not even admit the possibility of the shooter not continuing because he saw someone else with a gun?

But do you consider the possibility that he could be lying, I mean nobody else saw this action.

[CalWizrd]

Originally Posted by citizenzen

According to this U.S. Census report, both states are worse than the U.S. average for violent crime.

http://www.census.gov/compendia/stat...es/12s0308.pdf

similar results ...

http://www.infoplease.com/us/statist...ate-state.html

Might very well be, but it would be interesting to compare the rate to pre shall-issue time.

Also, there are now 38 shall issue states. They can't all have a worse rate for violent crime than the average, can they?

[anonymouslurker]

Originally Posted by citizenzen

According to this U.S. Census report, both states are worse than the U.S. average for violent crime.

http://www.census.gov/compendia/stat...es/12s0308.pdf

similar results ...

http://www.infoplease.com/us/statist...ate-state.html

Seems to me that statistics comparing before permits were issued vs. after permits were issued would be more applicable. Your references are pointless.

Originally Posted by Happybunny

But do you consider the possibility that he could be lying, I mean nobody else saw this action.

You really seem to be stuck on the hero factor, as in this person made up the story for glory and attention. Yes, it's possible he lied, but again you are completely missing the point.

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by CalWizrd

Might very well be, but it would be interesting to compare the rate to pre shall-issue time.

Also, there are now 38 shall issue states. They can't all have a worse rate for violent crime than the average, can they?

Originally Posted by anonymouslurker

Seems to me that statistics comparing before permits were issued vs. after permits were issued would be more applicable. Your references are pointless.

I was merely providing recent statistics.

I have no idea when these laws were passed.

Please feel free to provide any information you feel would be helpful.

[samiwas]

Originally Posted by CalWizrd

Also, there are now 38 shall issue states. They can't all have a worse rate for violent crime than the average, can they?

So, then...some of the states might be above-average, and some might be below-average, and some might be right around average. So, in the end, being a shall-issue state doesn't mean crap? Is that what you're getting at?

[CalWizrd]

Originally Posted by samiwas

So, then...some of the states might be above-average, and some might be below-average, and some might be right around average. So, in the end, being a shall-issue state doesn't mean crap? Is that what you're getting at?

No. My point being that having concealed weapon permit holders does not create a state full of "shoot first" cowboys, as many predicted it would.

[hulugu]

Originally Posted by SLC Flyfishing

It's possible that if the shooter noticed that someone else was armed and ready, that he then decided that it was time to go ahead and kill himself as planned before someone else got to do it?

It's interesting. My reading from the article is that the shooter's gun was jammed. He cleared the weapon and then decided to take his own life. It's speculation that the Miel was the cause. For all we know that was the plan, but the shooter took a moment because of the jam. It's also possible that he was going to continue shooting, but the jam prevented him from doing so.

The point is that because of our laws, there was at least a deterrent present, one that at the very least could have drawn fire and occupied the shooter's attention until police arrived (as happened in the 2007 Salt Lake City mall shooting).

I think "deterrent" is the wrong word, here. At best, the Oregon CCW carrier engaged the shooter, but his presence didn't deter.

...Some people here have claimed that CCW holders would serve no purpose except to harm others in the crossfire and I think this is an excellent rebuttal to that claim.

To that specific claim, yes, I agree.

Originally Posted by Rob.G

I just completed my Oregon CCW training. There is a huge focus on paying attention to what you could hit if you miss. There's also a lot of instruction on when deadly force is authorized and when it isn't. This is why CCW holders will very rarely open fire.

IMO the world would be a better place if many more people were armed. Right now I don't even have a handgun to conceal; I sold my Beretta 92FS because it was too big and heavy. I'm trying to decide between a Glock 37 and a Bersa Ultra-Compact, both in the .45 variety.

Rob

What saturation would make this a "better place?" I'm sitting in cafe surrounded by around 35 people. How many of those people should be armed?

Originally Posted by Ugg

He did nothing and the OP's title is extremely misleading. Drawing a gun with no ability to fire it is not a confrontation , although the NRA would like everyone to believe that

I agree. Confrontation is also an incorrect usage. At best, this man might have engaged the attention of the shooter for a moment, but I don't buy that he stopped the shootings. A jammed gun did.

Originally Posted by CalWizrd

Might very well be, but it would be interesting to compare the rate to pre shall-issue time.

Also, there are now 38 shall issue states. They can't all have a worse rate for violent crime than the average, can they?

With 38 of 50 states, they would actually bend the average. I think your question about pre and post-Shall Issue is the right one.

I know that D.C.'s homicide rate dropped 23 percent after the city's gun laws were overturned, but if we compare that against a trend line we find that it's not as dramatic as one would think on first glance. The rate the year before was 14 percent, the year before was 13 similar.

One of the difficulties in assessing Shall Issue's effect on violent crime is the crime rates in the US were already dropping, so getting signal from noise is tough.

[Mac'nCheese]

Originally Posted by SLC Flyfishing

Does this qualify?



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_Square_shooting

I was working the trauma bay that night and got two of the survivors. Not a pretty sight.

This police officer had a weapon with him (in direct violation of the mall's no-guns policy I might add) and was able to engage the shooter and draw his fire until the first on-duty police officer arrived. Together they occupied the shooter until SWAT arrived and killed the shooter.

This kid had a pistol grip shotgun (which was later determined to have been obtained illegally, and the seller prosecuted), as well as a handgun. He also had a backpack full of shotgun shells. Had nobody been there to intervene the death toll would undoubtedly been much higher.

So there you have it. Proof that CCW can in fact be of benefit in these situations.

I don't have a CCW permit, nor do I plan on getting one by the way. But I do see their value, in situations like this.

I doubt people will think this is a good example of CCW permits. This was an off-duty cop not a regular civilian who got a CCW PERMIT and a gun on their own. Still, good thing this guy was there. Most people probably refuse to admit, that some times it's a Matter of dumb luck -right place right time- that turns what could have been a huge tragedy into a story like this one.

[CalWizrd]

Originally Posted by hulugu

...One of the difficulties in assessing Shall Issue's effect on violent crime is the crime rates in the US were already dropping, so getting signal from noise is tough.

Very true, but considering the opposite side of that coin... I don't believe there are any meaningful statistics from any "shall issue" state that the rate of violent (shooting) crimes increased after shall issue was passed.

[barkomatic]

Originally Posted by Menel

The US could disband all of ours.

Leave the remaining few in the hands of the Russians and Iranians.

Good plan?

----------

So draft a law that says no killing people with firearms in malls. I'm sure that will solve it.

Nope, but a law banning all guns might.

[CalWizrd]

Originally Posted by barkomatic

Nope, but a law banning all guns might.

I can get you a really good deal on a one third ownership in the Brooklyn Bridge.

[Sydde]

Originally Posted by anonymouslurker

You really seem to be stuck on the hero factor, as in this person made up the story for glory and attention. Yes, it's possible he lied, but again you are completely missing the point.

He could be embellishing the story just because he wants to bolster support for CCW by saying that it works as a deterrent.

[Happybunny]

Originally Posted by Sydde

He could be embellishing the story just because he wants to bolster support for CCW by saying that it works as a deterrent.

That is what I think happened

[MadeTheSwitch]

I much rather have plain clothes undercover security in public spaces like malls be stationed in key places in case of violence rather then rely on the general public to hopefully be in the right place at the right time and have the right training. Just makes more sense.

[hulugu]

Originally Posted by CalWizrd

Very true, but considering the opposite side of that coin... I don't believe there are any meaningful statistics from any "shall issue" state that the rate of violent (shooting) crimes increased after shall issue was passed.

I agree. I think the CCW licenses is the best way to introduce new guns since there's some strict requirements and training in place, far better than allowing people to just purchase a gun willy-nilly.

If Loughner or Holmes were required to get a CCW-equivalent license before they purchased their weapons, I don't think either of them would have gotten past the first few classes. The CCW licensing system could actually work as a sanity-check on new gun purchases.

I just wrote a piece that argues against new gun laws, but also against widespread gun ownership. Both are haphazard and emotional.

----------

Originally Posted by MadeTheSwitch

I much rather have plain clothes undercover security in public spaces like malls be stationed in key places in case of violence rather then rely on the general public to hopefully be in the right place at the right time and have the right training. Just makes more sense.

If they go through real training and qualifications, sure. Otherwise, they could become part of the problem.

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by CalWizrd

Very true, but considering the opposite side of that coin... I don't believe there are any meaningful statistics from any "shall issue" state that the rate of violent (shooting) crimes increased after shall issue was passed.

According to to this Wikipedia page [bolding mine] ...

Concealed carry in the United States

For example, Florida has issued 2,031,106 licenses since adopting its law in 1987, and had 843,463 licensed permit holders as of July 31, 2011.

Florida's adult population is ~15,000,000.

This means only ~5.6% of the adult population has opted for conceal carry permits.

At such a low percentage, I wouldn't expect "the Wild West".

[CalWizrd]

Originally Posted by citizenzen

According to to this Wikipedia page [bolding mine] ...

...

Very interesting page you pointed out.

In support of my previous assertion that it is typically the more responsible members of our society that opt to receive concealed weapons licenses, I found this quote on that same Wkipedia page:

The same study concluded that Texas CHL holders were always less likely to commit any particular type of crime than the general population, and overall were 13 times less likely to commit any crime.

[Don't panic]

Originally Posted by CalWizrd

Very interesting page you pointed out.

In support of my previous assertion that it is typically the more responsible members of our society that opt to receive concealed weapons licenses, I found this quote on that same Wkipedia page:

an obvious follow up would be to require every firearm owner to go through the same/similar process, regardless of the type of firearm the want to own.

[thekev]

Originally Posted by CalWizrd

Might very well be, but it would be interesting to compare the rate to pre shall-issue time.

Also, there are now 38 shall issue states. They can't all have a worse rate for violent crime than the average, can they?

It's unlikely, but it could happen assuming they don't discard outliers. Don't confuse average with median.

Originally Posted by citizenzen

This means only ~5.6% of the adult population has opted for conceal carry permits.

At such a low percentage, I wouldn't expect "the Wild West".

I don't consider this a low percentage. "Wild West" is obviously a figurative and exaggerated term, but I doubt this involves an even distribution. 5.6% could mean running into many people who carry guns in public, depending upon your location.