In Light of the Recent Shootings....

Simply having a rifle in the trunk isn't a solution to mass shooters or any other lethal emergency. In fact, I'd expect a trunk rifle to be irrelevant in most such situations.

Click to expand...

I would agree with you in general and I think most others would too; I think.

Mind set. Skill set. Tool set.

I also think that most people on gun forums, rightly or wrongly, think of themselves as having the Mind set and Skill set, at least to some degree.

We're talking Tool set now.

Here is where I think a truck gun comes to play for treads like this.

When you need a rifle, even if you have the best mind set and skill set, you still need a rifle to make that 100 yard shot or any shot that a pistol isnt adequate as a rifle would be.


The Water Tower, Hollywood Shootout, Las Vegas, apperantly this last church shooting, the Florida night club, France theatre ... these are scenarios that lasted a while and afforded some time for a truck gun to have been possibly retrieved. Im sure there are others, too. (I'm not discussing, at the, whether or not it should be retrieved)



We're talking super lotto type chances of even being near one of these events and even smaller of a chance of one being something that a rifle might be the right Tool set.

With out that ticket you cant win the lotto no matter how mentally prepared or skilled you think your number picking strategy is....or, With out that rifle, you can't fully utilize your Mind set or Skill set when you need a rifle to make the longer distant shot that a pistol just isnt up to the task.

"In light of the recent shootings" I haven't changed my carry habits much, except that I use those recent events as a reminder/push to carry more often/consistently. Carrying is a pain and if i'm being honest, I don't do it all the time. It's easy to get lazy or to rationalize not carrying in lower risk environments.
Truck guns have been discussed a lot on here - makes sense given Langendorff's use of an AR to engage and stop Kelley. (even though Langendorff's unloaded AR was retrieved from his home, not a truck...)
I do not keep a "truck gun." I do own a business in an urban area which has been subjected to and (more recently) threatened by social unrest... In recent history, social unrest was predicated by scheduled, known events such as a DA's decision on whether or not to charge officer in an unjustified (racially motivated?) shooting or a verdict announcement or sentencing...
In these scenarios where "something" is expected to happen "sometime" during the next week I can't just not go to work. I can't board up my business "just in case..." I can't abandon everything I own to looting, vandalism and destruction. In these scenarios I pack an AR and plenty of loaded mags in the truck, along with extra firearms and ammo to arm those who wish to help me.

I wonder if a true large caliber pistol might be an answer...a 44 Magnum or something? Pain to carry, but if that's your concern...six or twelve rounds of .44 or .45 on you beats two hundred fifty yards away.

Sam1911 said:

Simply having a rifle in the trunk isn't a solution to mass shooters or any other lethal emergency. In fact, I'd expect a trunk rifle to be irrelevant in most such situations.

Click to expand...

"Simply" having any equipment in the trunk is unlikely to be useful without sufficiently rapid access AND the training to use it effectively. But I do find it notable that most of my local police departments are now keeping AR style rifles in their vehicles, often in the trunk. If it is a reasonable choice for them, it likely is also a reasonable choice for armed citizens who are willing to equal or exceed the local police in their training and proficiency.

In my rural area, the rifle in the truck or tractor has more often been lethal to varmints as well as stray dogs and coyotes threatening my livestock. But there was one occasion many years ago when the miscreants threatening violence quickly tucked tail and ran like rats when the rifle came into play.

Bottom line? Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it.

Situations seem to unfold too quickly to access the rifle, and some really do. But a high level of situational awareness can change the time dynamics considerably.

I wonder if a true large caliber pistol might be an answer...a 44 Magnum or something? Pain to carry, but if that's your concern...six or twelve rounds of .44 or .45 on you beats two hundred fifty yards away.

Click to expand...

How does that help? A human isn't hard to penetrate with a standard service handgun round. A handgun of any kind takes a lot of skill to make hits with at great distance. The only reason handgun hunters use those guns is for the extra challenge of it. Otherwise they'd use the MUCH easier rifle. If you're actually shooting at a person who's trying to kill you and/or others, you really aren't looking to make it extra challenging.

If you do draw that horrible unlucky lottery ticket and there's a mass shooter and you're in a position like Mr. Willeford, you go get the AR-15 because it's the best tool for the job.

"Simply" having any equipment in the trunk is unlikely to be useful without sufficiently rapid access AND the training to use it effectively. But I do find it notable that most of my local police departments are now keeping AR style rifles in their vehicles, often in the trunk. If it is a reasonable choice for them, it likely is also a reasonable choice for armed citizens who are willing to equal or exceed the local police in their training and proficiency.

Click to expand...

Of course you're right about those things. I'd mildly counter with the point that the police are duty bound to drive those vehicles to spots of reported trouble, and to do things like set up perimeters around hostage takers, bank robberies, etc., and do a lot of things that those of us who aren't sworn officers would have no business doing.

There is, of course, some overlap wherein an officer who happens to have a rifle in his patrol car might be as likely to randomly be where some mass shooter lets go, as would an average citizen who might be in the same position, but I don't know how much of an overlap that is. Seems small.

Oh, a rifle is a better weapon. The only reason for a pistol to exist is to fight your way back to a rifle. But a rifle is less practical than a pistol, even a large one

Rocketmedic said:

Oh, a rifle is a better weapon. The only reason for a pistol to exist is to fight your way back to a rifle. But a rifle is less practical than a pistol, even a large one

Click to expand...

I'm not sure private citizens ever use a pistol to fight their way back to a rifle. I have yet to find a verifiable example of that happening, despite looking and asking online. So...pretty damn uncommon.

Berger.Fan222 said:

I do find it notable that most of my local police departments are now keeping AR style rifles in their vehicles, often in the trunk. If it is a reasonable choice for them, it likely is also a reasonable choice for armed citizens

Click to expand...

I won't be mild about it, because this kind of mindset is dangerous - The responsible reaction by a civilian is NOT the same as that by an LEO. It was NOT the duty of the "Texas Hero" to arm himself and run towards the danger - an offensive action - and while we're all glad it happened, frankly, I won't be surprised if there are civil or criminal repercussions for him. In similar circumstances, for example, when a civilian has taken law into their own hands and used their own vehicle (in place of a rifle) to ram a suspect vehicle, ending a high speed car chase, the civilian has faced charges and lawsuits.

Civilians aren't law enforcement. The duty of the civilian is to retreat, with the responsibility to defend themselves. The duty of the LEO is to "protect and serve," and that "protect" part is sometimes a bit more operative than not.

Rocketmedic said:

The only reason for a pistol to exist is to fight your way back to a rifle.

Click to expand...

This makes absolutely no sense in the civilian risk profile. If you're mugged in a parking lot, shoot the guy with your pocket pistol, it's going to seem quite odd when you pop the trunk and pull out a rifle, then take cover behind your engine block until back up arrives (the authorities).

Sam1911 said:

Of course you're right about those things. I'd mildly counter with the point that the police are duty bound to drive those vehicles to spots of reported trouble, and to do things like set up perimeters around hostage takers, bank robberies, etc., and do a lot of things that those of us who aren't sworn officers would have no business doing.

There is, of course, some overlap wherein an officer who happens to have a rifle in his patrol car might be as likely to randomly be where some mass shooter lets go, as would an average citizen who might be in the same position, but I don't know how much of an overlap that is. Seems small.

Click to expand...

Sam, Here's some info I think you would like. Lots of valuable, hard data by the FBI with quite a bit of detail. Titled: A Study of Active Shooter Incidents in the United States Between 2000 and 2013

The link still works below and is in pdf. I suggest you download it - Who knows how long it will be there.

Its not 100% related to this thread but it has info that is relevant to your post and its just darn good data for these (generally speaking) types of threads. The new format of THR changed my post just a bit.


Said by me/danez71 in 2015 on THR,

Out of the last 148 mass shootings.....

According to the FBI, citizens have engaged in gun fire with the shooter, stopping it, 3.1% of the shooting incidents.

That represents stopping the bad guy 2.5 times MORE often by armed citizens as compared to armed off-duty LEOs.

https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/20...r-incidents-in-the-u.s.-between-2000-and-2013

■■ In 21 incidents (13.1%), the situation ended after unarmed citizens safely and successfully restrained the shooter. In 2 of those incidents, 3 off-duty law enforcement officers were present and assisted. Of note, 11 of the incidents involved unarmed principals, teachers, other school staff and students who confronted shooters to end the threat (9 of those shooters
were students).

■■ In 5 incidents (3.1%), the shooting ended after armed individuals who were not law enforcement personnel exchanged gunfire with the shooters. In these incidents, 3 shooters were killed, 1 was wounded, and 1 committed suicide.

■■ The individuals involved in these shootings included a citizen with a valid firearms permit and armed security guards at a church, an airline counter, a federally managed museum, and a school board meeting.25

■■ In 2 incidents (1.3%), 2 armed, off-duty police officers engaged the shooters, resulting in the death of the shooters. In 1 of those incidents, the off-duty officer assisted a responding officer to end the threat.


From that, the data shows that it is more than 2x more likely that an armed citizen stops a mass shooter than an armed off duty LEO. Yet, off duty and retired LEO's always get the exceptions to the gun control laws.

Click to expand...

danez71 said:

Keeping with my fair and pragmatism, ,,, Is there a documented SD shooting where someone actually is quoted saying they wish they had a bigger gun and or more bullets?

Click to expand...

This is easy to answer. Subscribe to The American Handgunner magazine and read The Ayoob Files article that is in each issue. He tries to include the comments of the citizen/leo in the aftermath. Some of the comments over the years have been that the survivor changed his gun / ammunition after the incident.

Sam, Here's some info I think you would like.

Click to expand...

Thanks!

The only reason for a pistol to exist is to fight your way back to a rifle.

Click to expand...

One of the great "truthy" statements of our times.

It makes some sense in the very specific context of war, when it would apply to support and rear echelon soldiers who find themselves suddenly overrun and facing direct fire from a swarming horde of enemy troops.


It passes from "true" to "truthy" when it is applied to a civilian peacetime setting. Then it carries the jingle of sounding wise, but in real application it makes no sense at all. Instead of describing a common situation which must be prepared for, it describes the LEAST common of all eventualities a citizen might face. And presents that near vanishingly rare circumstance as not just common, but THE context in which we should view self defense.

That's just absurd, and a dangerous misdirection from training to handle violent situation in the manner that civilians in peacetime reasonably could be expected to react.

Sam1911,

I know numbers mean a lot to you. In fact based on your numbers there is not any reason for the average citizen to even carry a gun.

Let me offer this for thought;

A Statistic is when your neighbor has a crime committed against them. Being a Victim is when it happens to YOU.

BSA1 said:

This is easy to answer. Subscribe to The American Handgunner magazine and read The Ayoob Files article that is in each issue. He tries to include the comments of the citizen/leo in the aftermath. Some of the comments over the years have been that the survivor changed his gun / ammunition after the incident.

Click to expand...

I'll give you that with the caveat that the fact that they said that is a strong indication that what they were using prior to and during the event was adequate and having a truck rifle (which seems to be what the thread has morphed into) is still kinda out in left field.

I do give you credit for that... thanks.

And to reiterate, I'm not against them. If I had acreage I tended to I'd more than likely have one. But in response to the recent events, which is what the thread started as, I don't feel it's prudent for me to increase my fire power availible on my person (cc) or in my truck. I gots lots of other unlikely, but more likely, scenarios to worry about.

A Statistic is when your neighbor has a crime committed against them. Being a Victim is when it happens to YOU.

Click to expand...

And the lottery is a tax on people who are bad at math.



I take it from this response that you're going to stick to your belief that we're nearly overrun by a massive rising tide of lethal terrorist violence? That our citizens are nearly criminally unprepared for the likelihood a violent deaths that await them?

I can't convince you not to be afraid of those things, if pointing to numbers like 0.7 out of 323,100,000 doesn't ease your mind at all.

It's funny in a way. One of the most common refrains I hear on thr every week is how much we distrust the news media, how they lie, how they exaggerate, how they blow things completely out of proportion. And yet in this we can look at a simple comparison of numbers, do some extremely basic math, identify approximately how big a concern these things really are -- and then cast it all aside saying, "no I think I'm going to believe what was implied by that scary news story I saw on TV."

The way I see all of this is like this. I have only one life. It must be defended equally well whether the threat is from a crackhead or from a mass shooter. I don't carry an itty bitty pocket pistol because I feel the crackhead will kill me less dead. Quite the contrary. I feel a crackhead is much more likely to kill me equally dead. So I carry the best gun in the largest caliber I can legally carry and shoot well that I feel is reliable.

I won't be mild about it, because this kind of mindset is dangerous - The responsible reaction by a civilian is NOT the same as that by an LEO. It was NOT the duty of the "Texas Hero" to arm himself and run towards the danger - an offensive action - and while we're all glad it happened,

Sorry but the Police don't have the responsibility either. Texas attitude is citizens should be taking action.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said American churches should be “arming some of the parishioners” or hiring “professional security”.

“It’s going to happen again”..

If more church-goers were armed “there’s always the opportunity that the gunman will be taken out before he has the opportunity to kill very many people."

frankly, I won't be surprised if there are civil or criminal repercussions for him.

He won't in Texas (and most of rural America).

Civilians aren't law enforcement. The duty of the civilian is to retreat, with the responsibility to defend themselves. The duty of the LEO is to "protect and serve," and that "protect" part is sometimes a bit more operative than not.

Wrong, wrong , wrong. Civilians are part of law enforcement. We elected representatives to pass laws. It is our moral responsibility to report and stop criminal activity when it is practical.

Prior to the 1960's assistance from civilians was strongly relied on by most Police and especially with Sheriff Departments. LEO's knew that they could mobilize and receive support by armed citizens in short order. Hummm...Some folks call that the Militia as did the Founding Fathers.

Then came the 1960's and the myth that only professional law men could safely enforce the law and citizens were most likely to be hurt or killed if they resisted or tried to defend themselves. This myth was widely pushed by TV shows like Dragnet and Adam12.

The Police have no duty to "protect and serve" citizens. The Supreme Court has ruled as such. You can call 911 and request Police help but if they don't come well you are just s-o-l.

Worse yet is how isolated the Police are from citizens. They drive around in cars with the windows rolled up, a/c or heater running, listening tunes on the AM/FM radio. How can they talk to citizens let alone hear someone calling for help?

BSA1 said:

In fact based on your numbers there is not any reason for the average citizen to even carry a gun.

Click to expand...

I was going to suggest the same thing.

Click to expand...

And it's not a completely incorrect take away message.

I know many many many many people who have never carried a gun and never even seriously contemplated carrying a gun. And they have gone to their entire lives without ever meeting a situation where they needed one. It is quite problematic for me to treat them or speak to them or even think of them as though they're being irresponsible.

My dad and mom are good examples. In their 70s now, they've had good long lives without a single need to ever be armed or even considered going armed. I choose to be armed when I can. My life situation is not appreciably different from theirs, but I feel like there are just enough bad people in bad situations in this country to make my going armed not an absurd thing to do.

And a big factor in that is that I shoot a lot, I like having guns, I like having them with me. There are also large portions of every single week when I can't be armed. But that doesn't even give me a moment's pause.

So this tenuous and discretionary need to be armed is realistic enough when we are considering the average everyday run-of-the-mill lethal force encounters which we know do happen with enough regularity to compile some realistic statistics about.

Stretching this somewhat tenuous need to be armed because of the fairly rare instances of muggings or hold-ups or murderers, out to cover the astronomically smaller number of incidents where one could realistically access and use a rifle, to my eyes and to the numbers that I have been able to find, passes far beyond anything that could be considered a present need.

As I've said so many times, "want to" is a whole different thing.

I carry for my own security now if that envelope of security benefits a stranger that’s a good thing but to inject yourself into a situation where you’re not threatened is a big mistake.

I take it from this response that you're going to stick to your belief that we're nearly overrun by a massive rising tide of lethal terrorist violence?

Oh you are just being silly and you know it.

That our citizens are nearly criminally unprepared for the likelihood a violent deaths that await them?

Well given how few citizens actually carry I agree with your statement. How can someone deal with a violent attack if they haven't even taken the basic step of having a gun to defend themselves with?

Of those that do carry, how many do so on a regular basis?

Of those how many carry a serious mid/full size handgun with powerful street proven ammunition?

As a LEO/Security Professional I do a lot of threat assessment. Convenience stores are a high target for robberies especially at night. Yet how often do we see comments that the poster carries a small size, small caliber handgun when going to convenience store late at night because it is easy to slip in the pocket of the shorts/pants?

So the poster is saying 'Yeah I know the store or myself may get robbed but I really don't think it will happen to me."

I can't convince you not to be afraid of those things, if pointing to numbers like 0.7 out of 323,100,000 doesn't ease your mind at all.

The families of the people that were shot in Newton and Hesston Kansas in February, 2016 probably don't take much comfort in your numbers. I certainly won’t mention to the families and survivors of the Church shooting.

BECAUSE I carry I don't have to be afraid.

BECAUSE I carry a serious, high power, high capacity handgun I know I can give a much better accounting of myself and stay in the fight longer if I am involved in a shooting incident.

BECAUSE of the type of ammunition I carry I know I can deal with a wider variety of situations.

BECAUSE I know there a lot of evil people in our society.

BECAUSE I personally know some of these individuals and know they have no reservations about killing anyone and doing any criminal activity they want to.

BECAUSE I know that since we live in a highly mobile society violent crimes are committed everywhere regardless of the size of my community.

It's funny in a way. One of the most common refrains I hear on thr every week is how much we distrust the news media, how they lie, how they exaggerate, how they blow things completely out of proportion. And yet in this we can look at a simple comparison of numbers, do some extremely basic math, identify approximately how big a concern these things really are -- and then cast it all aside saying, "no I think I'm going to believe what was implied by that scary news story I saw on TV."

It is true that the TV and print media try to convince us of what the latest fear of the day is. It is equally true that more and more Americans do not believe or trust the media and politicians. In fact a recent Gallup poll said that;

“Majorities believe that most members of Congress are "out of touch with average Americans" (79%), "focused on the needs of special interests" rather than the needs of their constituents (69%) and corrupt (52%). Americans are less critical of their own representatives, but substantial percentages say their own member of Congress is out of touch (48%), focused on special interests (47%) and corrupt (32%).”

http://news.gallup.com/poll/185918/majority-americans-congress-touch-corrupt.aspx

Another poll shows only 4 percent of Americans have “a great deal of confidence” in the US Congress, only 15 percent have a lot of confidence in the executive branch and only 24 percent have a great deal of confidence in the Supreme Court.

http://www.thedailybell.com/news-an...ericans-confidence-in-government-has-plunged/

Trust in the media isn’t any better. According to the Media Insight Projects May, 2017, report on public attitudes toward the media,

“…on many fronts, Americans are skeptical of “the news media” in the abstract, but generally trust the news they themselves rely on. And most people mention traditional or mainstream news sources as the ones they turn to. As an example, only 24 percent of Americans say they believe the news media in general are “moral.” But that number more than doubles, to a majority of 53 percent, when people are asked about the news media they use most often. Just 17 percent of Americans give the news media high marks for being “very accurate.” But twice as many (34 percent) say that about the news media they use.”

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/do-americans-trust-the-media_us_598cdfdde4b0ed1f464c09af

On November 10th “an ISIS affiliate that threatened “more bitter and greater” attacks in New York published a poster warning the West that more attacks, aimed at children, are on the way.

The poster shows an image of the Eiffel Tower merged with a photo of an AK-47 assault rifle. Monday, Nov. 13, is the two-year anniversary of a series of deadly terrorist attacks in Paris which left 130 people dead.

The text on the poster reads, “You will pay very expensive price for your war on Islam.”

“We will take revenge for the blood of Muslims on your land, we will kill the young before the older watch this,” reports PJ Media.

http://www.ntd.tv/2017/11/09/isis-threatens-to-kill-children-before-paris-attack-anniversary/

So do we as parents and grandparents just ignore this threat? Using math it is extremely low that it will be our children or grandchildren will be victims when a attack occurs (and yes I do believe one will occur just maybe not by this Monday. Probably a so-called “lone-wolf.”).

Some will say my belief is unreasonable but terrorist (domestic and foreign enemies) and violent crime attacks are largely outside of our control. But being as well armed and prepared as possible is not.

Just for the record I do not keep a long gun in my daily driver. It is a 20+ year old pick-up and there is not practical way to securely store a long gun in it. So instead I upgraded my edc to a Beretta 92FS with 15 round mag in the gun and a spare on my belt. I am currently evaluating whether to switch to 17 round mags. I am also evaluating my carry ammunition also.

Good discussion and viewpoints about our safety in America.

Oh you are just being silly and you know it.

Click to expand...

No I assure you I am not. You posted some things about the very real threat of terrorism. I posted some things that said this is not a very serious, even remotely likely, concern to any of us as individuals. You pretty much posted something that said you feel I'm hung up about the numbers and that you don't find statistics to be worthwhile indicators of risk.

How can someone deal with a violent attack if they haven't even taken the basic step of having a gun to defend themselves with?

Click to expand...

Well there are ways. I mean, having a gun is the very very last ditch in what should be a much more robust defensive posture.

But it's also worth recognizing that we all play the odds on risks of all sorts every single day and don't particularly care to be called stupid for not treating a risk that someone else sees as scary as particularly worth preparing for.

Back to examples, many of us will ride a bicycle or go for a drive without putting on helmet, does the statistics seem to indicate that were a lot more likely to die from head injuries in a bike wreck or car crash then we are of being shot to death by a criminal.

We gun people like guns, and it appears to me we give a lot more concern to violent death at the hands of criminals are terrorists then we do too much more common vectors of death, since there's don't have anything to do with our chosen favorite tools.