change ccw after el paso?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Since you (Jeb)are hung up about my qualifications; I was in the Army Feb. 86-Dec 89, MOS 76Y Unit Supply Specialist/Armorer, SMOS 45B, Small Arms Repair. Schools; Unit Supply Specialist/Armorer, Ft. Jackson, Advanced Armorer Course, Enemy Weapons Familiarization course,Field Sanitation (they had to send somebody). I was my unit's Range NCO.
Evangelist Cowboy, Sorry, this is spill-over form another thread about shotguns. Actually, in a scenario like the two recent shootings, a shotgun would be my last choice, despite my skill with it.
 
entropy said:
Since you (Jeb)are hung up about my qualifications; I was in the Army Feb. 86-Dec 89, MOS 76Y Unit Supply Specialist/Armorer, SMOS 45B, Small Arms Repair. Schools; Unit Supply Specialist/Armorer, Ft. Jackson, Advanced Armorer Course, Enemy Weapons Familiarization course,Field Sanitation (they had to send somebody). I was my unit's Range NCO.
Evangelist Cowboy, Sorry, this is spill-over form another thread about shotguns. Actually, in a scenario like the two recent shootings, a shotgun would be my last choice, despite my skill with it.
Click to expand...
Of course mine as well I'd want a rifle in the Walmart. Meant to imply for home defense.
 
entropy said:
Since you (Jeb)are hung up about my qualifications; I was in the Army Febt.
Click to expand...

Actually not at all interested in your Army career any more than someone is interested in mine. Unless you think arming millions of folks with shotguns then what is your point? Public security and safety is a professional field. From electronic surveillance to trained guards to access control. You could start with school safety and security and it is pathetic. They do not want to spend the money, but will lamely attempt to lie to the Public with basic security telling them they are protected. I see it at my local schools all the time. Full of holes throughout the system. Yet that will patronize the parents all the time. Helps with elections to the school board.
 
“...as a CC permit holder in a situation like this is to look for the nearest exit in this situation, and try to usher anyone near me out the door, and cover them and myself.”

“...and if the shooter steps out, take shots at the individual from cover.”

Very good and noble.

Problem, if you are at the exit everyone is fleeing towards (away from the shooter) and you are going to take a shot at the shooter, it will seem, to the escaping good folks and responding Officers that you are shooting at them.

People running from a shooter are not going to run towards more gun shots.

I would likely keep moving, away from the exit, to better cover so I could engage him. Everybody is headed to the exits. He is trying to kill people, that’s where the people will be. Maybe he won’t be focused on the pillar at a 45 degree angle from him. I hope so anyway.

There are absolutely no absolutes in this kind of scenario.

If he’s right in front of me, I’m going to kill him.

If he’s far away, I’m going to snipe him.

If I’m in the middle of the crowd of people trying to get away, I’m likely screwed. I’d shoot someone who doesn’t need shooting or, I won’t be able to get a shot in the chaos.

We actually discussed Aurora. Tough one. In the chaos, it would be hard to get a shot.

The best option may be to get out of sight on the floor and wait for a lull or, he walks past you and then pop up like a jack in the box and shoot him down.

Unfortunately, he may kill some people before you can stop him.
 
Jack B. said:
I basically agree with 460 Shooter. The reason I carry is to protect me and my family, not someone else. If you are not willing to protect you and your family don't expect me to put my family in jeopardy for you.
Click to expand...
Jack B. said:
If I were to get shot and killed or injured by someone with a gun trying to save someone who won't try to save themselves, then my family suffers.
Click to expand...
Exactly. We have a duty to protect our loved ones, and everyone has the right to protect themselves. However, unless I am a uniformed officer, I do not have the duty to protect others who have chosen not to employ an effective means to defend themselves. That doesn't mean I'm not going to help others as I can and react to save someone I don't personally know. Of course I will, but my CCW is NOT meant to turn me into a law enforcement officer of convenience. Choosing to do so puts your loved ones at risk of going on through life without you. That isn't fair to them.

The Evangelist Cowboy said:
And if you don't someone else suffers.
Click to expand...
Yes and that's unfortunate, but I can't take care of the entire world. I will not accept responsibility for someone else's loss at the cost of causing my own loved ones that same suffering in a scenario where I have gotten them to safety by trying to engage or re-engage and getting myself killed. It sounds very cold, but while I do care about everyone and want our society to think more clearly about protecting themselves and their loved ones, the suffering of others that are not my loved ones will always, and has to take a back seat to the people directly in my circle. My life for theirs is a fair trade. My life for anyone else who happens to be unlucky is not.

Making sure your loved ones come first is not cowardice, it's realistic and responsible. If everyone does it, and doesn't succumb to victim mentality, then we act with greater clarity. Refusing to act when an opportunity presents itself because you only care about yourself, or because you are so apathetic that you expect others to take care of you is cowardice. Being armed and not engaging when you see you can save a life right in front of you would be cowardly in my eyes.

Seek and engage however is what LEOs are trained for and it is their duty. That's why that cop that didn't go after that shooter was characterized as a coward and fired. He didn't do the job he promised to do, and people died.

The Evangelist Cowboy said:
If you have the capability to stop something and you don't your just as guilty as that guy with the AK no ands, ifs, or buts. You can get your family to safety and then engage.
Click to expand...
The Evangelist Cowboy said:
I stated to get your family out first but to not go back and engage when you have the means is negligent and you would be held to the same status as the man with the AK whether you like it or not.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but I just don't agree with these comments. There is no negligence there. Self defense means defending oneself, or by extension your kin, and anyone else you can help get out of harms way as a Good Samaritan. Seeking out a target to stop their actions is offense, not defense. That is the job of police.

I respect that our opinions differ so I'll just say take care. I hope none of us are ever confronted with this scenario.
 
Last edited:
460Shooter said:
Exactly. We have a duty to protect our loved ones, and everyone has the right to protect themselves. However, unless I am a uniformed officer, I do not have the duty to protect others who have chosen not to employ an effective means to defend themselves. That doesn't mean I'm not going to help others as I can and react to save someone I don't personally know. Of course I will, but my CCW is NOT meant to turn me into a law enforcement officer of convenience. Choosing to do so puts your loved ones at risk of going on through life without you. That isn't fair to them.


Yes and that's unfortunate, but I can't take care of the entire world. I will not accept responsibility for someone else's loss at the cost of causing my own loved ones that same suffering suffering in a scenario where I have gotten them to safety by trying to engage or re-engage and getting myself killed. It sounds very cold, but while I do care about everyone and want our society to think more clearly about protecting themselves and their loved ones, the suffering of others that are not my loved ones will always, and has to take a back seat to the people directly in my circle. My life for theirs is a fair trade. My life for anyone else who happens to be unlucky is not.

Making sure your loved ones come first is not cowardice, it's realistic and responsible. If everyone does it, and doesn't succumb to victim mentality, then we act with greater clarity. Refusing to act when an opportunity presents itself because you only care about yourself, or because you are so apathetic that you expect others to take care of you is cowardice. Being armed and not engaging when you see you can save a life right in front of you would be cowardly in my eyes.

Seek and engage however is what LEOs are trained for and it is their duty. That's why that cop that didn't go after that shooter was characterized as a coward and fired. He didn't do the job he promised to do, and people died.




Sorry, but I just don't agree with these comments. There is no negligence there. Self defense means defending oneself, or by extension your kin, and anyone else you can help get out of harms way as a Good Samaritan. Seeking out a target to stop their actions is offense, not defense. That is the job of police.

I respect that our opinions differ so I'll just say take care. I hope none of us are ever confronted with this scenario.
Click to expand...
Agree to disagree. I hope the same.
 
sgt127 said:
“...as a CC permit holder in a situation like this is to look for the nearest exit in this situation, and try to usher anyone near me out the door, and cover them and myself.”

“...and if the shooter steps out, take shots at the individual from cover.”

Very good and noble.

Problem, if you are at the exit everyone is fleeing towards (away from the shooter) and you are going to take a shot at the shooter, it will seem, to the escaping good folks and responding Officers that you are shooting at them.

People running from a shooter are not going to run towards more gun shots.

I would likely keep moving, away from the exit, to better cover so I could engage him. Everybody is headed to the exits. He is trying to kill people, that’s where the people will be. Maybe he won’t be focused on the pillar at a 45 degree angle from him. I hope so anyway.

There are absolutely no absolutes in this kind of scenario.

If he’s right in front of me, I’m going to kill him.

If he’s far away, I’m going to snipe him.

If I’m in the middle of the crowd of people trying to get away, I’m likely screwed. I’d shoot someone who doesn’t need shooting or, I won’t be able to get a shot in the chaos.

We actually discussed Aurora. Tough one. In the chaos, it would be hard to get a shot.

The best option may be to get out of sight on the floor and wait for a lull or, he walks past you and then pop up like a jack in the box and shoot him down.

Unfortunately, he may kill some people before you can stop him.
Click to expand...
Good thoughts, thanks for the response. Yes I agree, covering an exit would need to be done in a really measured way not to inhibit evacuating people. Setting yourself out of his/her plain of focus would definitely be an aid, and may give you a better shot in general. If you are in the stampeded, yeah I don't think a person would be effective.
 
Sadly, these shootings are not new. No changes here other than what I would have done anyway. I pocket carry a P365XL or P365, if I'm wearing pants or shorts with pockets not deep enough to conceal the XL. Two 15 round magazines as spares.

In regards to engaging a shooter sometimes our choices are bad or worse. I have two sons who's lives would be made pretty difficult if something happened to me. Unless I'm unfortunate enough to be in that situation I don't know what I'd do as there are too many variables to consider, but taking care of your family first for a non-LEO is not wrong.
 
"Where I live, there is much more worry about going into a local convenience store than a mass murder."

Last time I checked, being a victim of a mass shooting was significantly less likely than being struck by lightning.

Being a victim of a mugging or carjacking or sexual assault is unfortunately WAY more common. Math is much better than media coverage.
 
  1. After "car and knife jihad" got to be a thing on this side of the pond, I switched from an S&W Model 36 to a 3 1/2" M1911.
  2. The only large events to which I go are gun shows. I haven't been to a movie since "John Carter of Mars". I don't go to malls now that all of the bookstores are closed.
  3. Now that I work the graveyard shift, I barely see ANYBODY. I don't anticipate a mass shooting where there's nobody to shoot.
 
Sorry, but I just don't agree with these comments. There is no negligence there. Self defense means defending oneself, or by extension your kin, and anyone else you can help get out of harms way as a Good Samaritan. Seeking out a target to stop their actions is offense, not defense. That is the job of police.
Click to expand...

My whole earlier point that the preacher cowboy didn't like
 
Deanimator said:
  1. After "car and knife jihad" got to be a thing on this side of the pond, I switched from an S&W Model 36 to a 3 1/2" M1911.
  2. The only large events to which I go are gun shows. I haven't been to a movie since "John Carter of Mars". I don't go to malls now that all of the bookstores are closed.
  3. Now that I work the graveyard shift, I barely see ANYBODY. I don't anticipate a mass shooting where there's nobody to shoot.
Click to expand...
I had a Colt Officers ACP that I absolutely adored. After 1000 bucks poured into it I couldn't get it to run...hope yours is better Colt or Not.
 
I still carry and will continue to carry my same EDC which is a 7+1 9mm or a 5 round jframe. I'm also in the camp that I do not carry a firearm to save the world. I carry for self-defense and to defend my loved ones. Everyone should be responsible for their own protection.
 
The Evangelist Cowboy said:
People were there pointing phones at the guy watching him kill people, imagine if those hands were filled with 9mms and .38s. As far as I know (and if theres others go ahead and list them) only two people did something one of saved a little boy and the other saved several children. If you have the capability to stop something and you don't your just as guilty as that guy with the AK no ands, ifs, or buts. You can get your family to safety and then engage. I don't know about you but I'm the one out and about most times so it's me alone and I only worry about the threat, but to not engage and seeing people die I don't know how a person would be able to live with themselves.
Click to expand...

Not that I disagree, but for conversation sake - when you come back to engage - what happens when you cross paths with another solid citizen and you both think the other is the bad guy?
 
My CCW goal is the protection of myself and family. If I can secondarily, help to save others I will, but my primary objective is to survive.
BTW a friend who is retired SWAT (St Louis PD) cautioned me as a civilian in an active shooter situation to NOT to try to engage the shooter, you could easily be considered a secondary shooter by the responders and be neutralized. One In a million, but a consideration.
 
tactikel said:
My CCW goal is the protection of myself and family. If I can secondarily, help to save others I will, but my primary objective is to survive.
BTW a friend who is retired SWAT (St Louis PD) cautioned me as a civilian in an active shooter situation to NOT to try to engage the shooter, you could easily be considered a secondary shooter by the responders and be neutralized. One In a million, but a consideration.
Click to expand...
Great point. Police officers have came to the scene and almost immediately killed a man who was walking around Wal-Mart holding an airsoft gun he was going to purchase, a child at a playground who was playing with a realistic looking toy gun, and others who cellphone aledgedly looked like a gun. If I have no other choice but to fight or die, I'm going to fight; otherwise, I'm running and not looking back. I certainly am not going to be caught with a firearm in my hand if officers just so happen to show up while I'm proactively engaging the shooter.

I believe some have delusion of grandeur when they think about what's likely to happen when confronting a heavily armed active shooter(s). Seems they believe that they're going to prevail and stop the threat and/or everything is going to work out in their favor how they planned it in their heads. Like Mike Tyson said: "Everybody has a plan until they get punched in the mouth."
 
IMO, regarding calibers and design, a handgun carried for defensive use from humans must be reliable and powerful enough to put down another human. The user must be proficient enough to achieve good hits to the vitals under pressure. To me, the absolute minimums I would recommend for this purpose would be a 38 special with snub barrel or a 380 like a Ruger. Best practices would be a compact 9mm like a shield or that Sig 365, Glock 43- something along those lines- or something with even more power. I have shot many squirrels, possums, coons, etc. with rimfire rifles and they were still fighting to survive. This alone tells me that they would be a poor choice for anything larger and determined to continue to stay in the fight.
 
WestTexShooter said:
Not that I disagree, but for conversation sake - when you come back to engage - what happens when you cross paths with another solid citizen and you both think the other is the bad guy?
Click to expand...
I
That’s an extremely hypothetical situation, when most of these attacks happen it is incredibly rare for one person that’s carrying to even be there, or as this thread seems suggestive of there is at least the attitude of non-intervention. There’s too many variables to throw in here, Did the other guy see the shooter?, Did he notice his weapon? If he knows that this guy has (insert whatever “scary” carbine/rifle) why would he assume the single stack nine and/or 5 shot revolver is in on the attack? In this attack we KNOW the following (I’m speaking purely of El Paso, I have not read the reports of the Dayton attack):

· Two heroes (so far) that saved others and one that engaged the shooter throwing objects at the shooter to get his attention

· Multiple camera views from people who felt the need to record instead of “getting out of dodge” as many here suggested.

· The man was wearing a t shirt, ear plugs, AK and NO BODY ARMOR.

So knowing what we have (this list is not everything that happened if we want to play the whole “well actually what happened” crap take it to CNN) we can take away this, he (the shooter) was in viewpoint from multiple angles by people recording and did NOT focus in on them. In the time he took to fire his weapon someone armed could have made a well aimed shot and taken the SOB out. One man directly engaged the shooter throwing merchandise to distract the shooter from killing a child. If said man had ANY sort of firearm again a shot could be taken to neutralize the threat, shooter did not focus on the man until he started throwing things at him, his aim was on the parents who were shielding their child. That’s just at two points that someone could’ve taken the shot, in several situations we see the shooter brings out body armor, in this case the shooter did not have any. A pistol/revolver would’ve been able to stop this situation had one been carried and more importantly employed. IF there are two people carrying they most likely wouldn’t be able to see each other, but if they did notice each other I would think (assuming proper training) theyd be staying low and would assume the other person was not the attacker as the attacker would (typically) not be crouching and crawling around when he has the advantage of a rifle and hes LOOKING for targets. In short, yeah things can happen, I said in my prior post that there is a risk and most of the time it pays off, these people look for easy targets (like a Walmart) vs hard target (gunshop, police station, etc) that’s why they either off themselves or get arrested with no incident, but to me the action of stopping carnage is worth the risk. BTW I never advocated for blindly running in charging, NO I have advocated throughout this whole thread for training above all, so the “superhero” argument is nill, if I thought I was some sort of bad ass I wouldn’t go for any training and rely on my super strength that I don’t have.
 
FL-NC said:
IMO, regarding calibers and design, a handgun carried for defensive use from humans must be reliable and powerful enough to put down another human. The user must be proficient enough to achieve good hits to the vitals under pressure. To me, the absolute minimums I would recommend for this purpose would be a 38 special with snub barrel or a 380 like a Ruger. Best practices would be a compact 9mm like a shield or that Sig 365, Glock 43- something along those lines- or something with even more power. I have shot many squirrels, possums, coons, etc. with rimfire rifles and they were still fighting to survive. This alone tells me that they would be a poor choice for anything larger and determined to continue to stay in the fight.
Click to expand...
I agree
 
The Evangelist Cowboy said:
If you have the capability to stop something and you don't your just as guilty as that guy with the AK no ands, ifs, or buts.
Click to expand...

No, you're not. The "guy with the AK" made the decision to kill people that day. If someone who's carrying decides not to engage the shooter, there may be reasons for that. You don't know that person's family situation. Do they have kids or someone else who's relying on them? What happens to those people if he engages the shooter and get killed doing so? That person did not create the situation. They're put in the position of having to choose between two terrible options, confronting the shooter and risking their life or escaping and wondering if they could have stopped it. Choosing to escape because they have people who need them is not the same as deciding you're going to murder as many people as you can.
 
TomJ said:
No, you're not. The "guy with the AK" made the decision to kill people that day. If someone who's carrying decides not to engage the shooter, there may be reasons for that. You don't know that person's family situation. Do they have kids or someone else who's relying on them? What happens to those people if he engages the shooter and get killed doing so? That person did not create the situation. They're put in the position of having to choose between two terrible options, confronting the shooter and risking their life or escaping and wondering if they could have stopped it. Choosing to escape because they have people who need them is not the same as deciding you're going to murder as many people as you can.
Click to expand...
Yeah you are. Plain and simple. If you disagree fine don't care.
 
What I CC is what I shoot well and is comfortable to carry, that will continue to be my choice. If current events dictate anything it could be an increased avoidance of urban/suburban locations.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

A
  • Locked
CCW - Action Type and reason(s) for the preference?
2 3 4 5
Replies
100
Views
6K
Wanderling
Wanderling
N
  • Locked
Your favorite small handgun for CCW?
2 3
Replies
54
Views
3K
Kind of Blued
K
C
  • Locked
CCW Gun Choice
2
Replies
33
Views
3K
Cactus Jack Arizona
C
M
  • Locked
Tips for CCW in an office?
Replies
15
Views
1K
CDW4ME
CDW4ME
Ralph III
  • Locked
1911 style pistol for CCW?
2 3 4 5
Replies
119
Views
5K
9mmepiphany
9mmepiphany
Back
Top