Quantcast

change ccw after el paso?

Discussion in 'Handguns: General Discussion' started by jstert, Aug 5, 2019.

  1. Styx

    Styx Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2014
    Messages:
    902
    According to the recent FBI report, out of 50 active shooters, 13 shooters committed suicide, 11 shooters were killed by police, 8 shooters were stopped by citizens, 18 shooters were apprehended by police. Citizens stopped almost just as many active shoters as law enforcement. Who knows how many more lives would have been saved if in all of these cases, citizens were allowed to carry firearms.
     
    Last edited: Aug 13, 2019
    drobs, Texas10mm and JFrame like this.
  2. Spats McGee

    Spats McGee Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2012
    Messages:
    3,614
    Location:
    Arkansas
    My EDC is a 9mm Shield and 2 spare 8-round mags. I'm very content with that and am unlikely to change it.

    I see getting my wife and daughter out of danger as my first obligation. After that, I don't know. I've never been in a gunfight, and would dearly love to keep it that way. That said, I can't say for sure whether I'd engage the shooter or try to get myself out of harm's way.
     
    40-82 likes this.
  3. JFrame

    JFrame Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Messages:
    1,587
    Location:
    Next to a reclaimed patch of swampland called D.C.
    I'm reminded of at least one classic moment when armed citizens interceded against a mass shooter.

    It was in Texas in 1966. Charles Whitman started shooting with an array of long arms from atop a tower at the University of Texas in Austin.

    This was in the days before SWAT, and the local constabulary were armed only with handguns. Students at UT went to their vehicles and got their hunting rifles. They laid down covering fire against Whitman, while two brave Austin police officers went up the tower, and one dispatched Whitman with his service revolver.

    Different times... o_O
     
    jstert, sgt127, Mike J and 1 other person like this.
  4. jar

    jar Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2003
    Messages:
    1,216
    Location:
    Texas!!!!!
    Got their rifle that was most likely in the rack in the rear window of their unlocked pickup that was sitting with the windows down cause no one left their windows up in Texas lessen it was raining.

    Yes, different times indeed.
     
    jstert, George P, Boattale and 3 others like this.
  5. Mustangowner

    Mustangowner Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2019
    Messages:
    26
    I've never been fond of "belly guns", I've carried a gun for 14 years and always make a point to practice at 25 yards (the longest I can get at the range I go to), longer if I'm out in the desert. So when people say something like "defense is arms length or a little more", that doesn't mean anything to me. I'm in a fairly low risk category being in my mid thirties now and in decent shape, but about 10 years ago I was at a train station at night in a not so good area and a young female with a stroller was at a ticket machine about 50-60 yards from me when three men came out of the shadows and approached her with what appeared to be knives in the hands of two of them, I then noticed another figure from the direction they came from sitting on the ground still in the shadows, I started hearing talking as I stared walking their direction, I put my hand on my gun and just yelled as loud as I could "Hey!", I took my gun out of the holster and kept it at my side, I think they realized what I had and started walking away. But had they started stabbing her or something I'd like to know I wouldn't have to take the time to run up to them to engage them while she's being stabbed. That in addition to active shooters, I think if anything you need to be more proficient with your carry gun at various ranges than any home defense gun that you really won't need a shot past 10 yards. And you can absolutely engage a person with a rifle with your handgun, for one thing there's a good chance the shooter is inexperienced (ever seen young guys shooting their AR15s at the 10 yard line and not doing any better than you and your handgun?), it's also unlikely you'll be in the crowd of his first volley, or his first target, he probably won't be expecting anybody to engage him especially if you can flank him, and you have a much better chance of stopping him than the innocent people he's shooting and killing, so I absolutely encourage you to at least get some fire on him to "entertain" him if nothing else, but hopefully you'll get some hits, cover and distance are your friends.
    As far as the .22, you can hit with a .380, .38, 9mm, .40 etc at distance with practice, they're also more reliable than .22s for the most part, but I think you have somewhat of the right idea and I think if a .22 is what you're comfortable with, that's at least Okay.
     
    jstert and 40-82 like this.
  6. Double Naught Spy

    Double Naught Spy Sus Venator

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    10,361
    Location:
    Forestburg, Texas
    Like El Paso. Look how many lives were saved by the citizens who weren't carry or the CBP officer who wasn't carrying. People could have been carrying at Sutherland Springs church, but were not. Two mass shootings

    Okay, 8 citizens stops versus 11 cop stops...
    Of the incidents mentioned in the report, 4 out of 8 times citizens stopped shooters, the citizens were unarmed. Of the 4 times citizens were armed, twice citizens exchanged gunfire and in two they held the gunman at gunpoint until law enforcement arrived. There was a nineth incident where a citizen exchanged gunfire and the gunman fled, only to continue shooting elsewhere.

    So in nearly half the incidents where citizens engaged gunmen, they did so unarmed and were successful.

    In 2016, John Wilson was carrying, drew his weapon to shoot at the active shooter, and was gunned down, shot through both legs. He was in public, could carry, did carry, and failed.
    https://cw39.com/2016/05/31/police-suspect-in-west-houston-mass-shooting-was-depressed-ex-military/

    So out of the 6 times armed citizens engaged active shooters, 1/3 of the time, the active shooter managed to continue.

    In at least one of the incidents where cops stopped an active shooter in 2016, it was also on the streets of Houston where citizens could carry, but none engaged the shooter.
    https://www.chron.com/news/houston-...e-shooter-on-Weslayan-Street-near-9284493.php

    The real issue goes well beyond just being allowed to carry. There are plenty of active shooter incidents where people could be carrying who either are not carrying or simply won't engage.
     
    jstert likes this.
  7. Texas10mm

    Texas10mm Member

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2018
    Messages:
    2,145
    Location:
    Not DFW
    If I'm not mistaken it was illegal to carry in a church at the time of the Sutherland Springs shootings. Something that was addressed in the last legislature.
     
  8. Apachedriver

    Apachedriver Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    614
    Location:
    Central Texas
    That's not completely correct. Carrying was already allowed in a church for years. The only issue the legislature addressed was to clarify the wording of the following:

    (Former wording)
    PC §46.035. UNLAWFUL CARRYING OF HANDGUN BY LICENSE
    HOLDER.
    (a) ...
    (b) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder
    intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries a handgun under the
    authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, regardless of
    whether the handgun is concealed, on or about the license holder's
    person:
    (1) ...;
    (2) ...;
    (3) ...;
    (4)on the premises of a hospital licensed under Chapter 241, Health
    and Safety Code, or on the premises of a nursing home licensed under
    Chapter 242, Health and Safety Code, unless the license holder has
    written authorization of the hospital or nursing home administration, as
    appropriate;
    (5) in an amusement park; or
    (6) on the premises of a church, synagogue, or other established
    place of religious worship.
    (c) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder
    intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries a handgun under the
    authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, regardless
    of whether the handgun is concealed, at any meeting of a governmental
    entity.
    ...
    (One page later, there was this note)
    ...
    (i) Subsections (b)(4), (b)(5), (b)(6), and (c) do not apply if the actor
    was not given effective notice under Section 30.06.
    ------
    I don't have the current wording handy. Perhaps someone else can post it.
     
    Last edited: Aug 13, 2019
  9. Kevin Keith

    Kevin Keith Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2009
    Messages:
    83
    Location:
    Fort Worth, Texas
    I'm changing nothing.
     
  10. Double Naught Spy

    Double Naught Spy Sus Venator

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    10,361
    Location:
    Forestburg, Texas
    I believe the law changed way back in 2012. The law is being revised again this year to clean up the language. The church still had/has the right to post 30.06 (and now 30.07) but few do. Sutherland Springs did not post. Congregation members with CHL/LTCs could have carried.
     
    jstert likes this.
  11. JohnKSa

    JohnKSa Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2003
    Messages:
    14,851
    Location:
    DFW Area
    The police indicated there were approximately 3000 people in the store. Let's say that 2/3 of them were Mexican Nationals shopping at the store and couldn't have carry permits--so only 1000 of the 3000 people at the store were TX residents. The stats on TX permit holders say that 1 in 29 TX residents has a permit. That's between 34 and 35 persons out of 1000.

    Even if those estimates are high by a factor of 2, there would still have been about a dozen and a half permit holders present at the scene of the shooting and yet none intervened.

    It was an IDEAL situation for a permit holder to intervene. The stats say that lots were present, it's a gun friendly state in a non-gun free zone. But no intervention. It's VERY hard to interpret that as anything other than strong evidence that permit holders are not likely to make a difference in mass shootings.
    He stopped the gunman, but he did not stop the shooting. The evidence points to the gunman already leaving the scene at the time he was engaged. Furthermore, it's not clear if the good guy was a permit holder, and he certainly wasn't at the scene. He came from his home and had to load his gun on the way to the scene.
    Did you read the story? The man who chased the gunman out of the synagogue was not a permit holder--in fact, he was unarmed. An off duty border patrol agent did shoot at the car--as the man was already leaving.
    This does appear to be a case where a permit holder interrupted a potential mass shooting. It can happen, and it does happen rarely. I don't think it's impossible, but the facts do show that it is unlikely and therefore I can not, in good conscience tell people anything else.
    Probably the Tyler courthouse shooting. It is true that after being engaged and killing the permit holder, the shooter did not kill anyone else--however it's also true that he had already shot his intended victims (wife and possibly his son) and he may have been leaving already. But I think that Mark Wilson is generally given credit for cutting the shooting short. Wilson was a permit holder but he wasn't on the scene. He heard the shooting and came from his home which was nearby. Again, it can happen. But it doesn't appear to be likely.
    Yes. He did intervene but does not appear to have had any effect other than getting killed. Neither the man nor his female accomplice were stopped.
    It is true that citizens often intervene, but they are mostly unarmed. I have to think that armed intervention would be more effective, but only if permit holders are present, are carrying, only if they will make the choice to intervene, and only if they intervene before the shooting is effectively already over. I wish the facts were different because I am a strong advocate of carrying and have in the past argued that permit holders are a deterrent and effective counter to mass shootings. Unfortunately, I also strive to be accurate and I just can't honestly go on telling people something that the facts contradict. Permit holders CAN be a deterrent, but apparently the choices they seem to make most frequently (not carrying, not intervening, not intervening soon enough) cause them to be unlikely to actually BE a deterrent. I don't intend to lie to people.
    That's incorrect. As noted by Apachedriver, and Double Naught Spy it has been legal for years to carry in church, in TX unless the church is posted 30.06. The initial CHL law passed in 1995, listed churches as prohibited places, but very quickly (maybe the next legislative session?) the law was changed so that they were only prohibited if they were 30.06 posted.
     
    Tallball likes this.
  12. JR24

    JR24 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2011
    Messages:
    2,625
    Location:
    The center of the mitt
    No, nothing has changed. I always valued to carry a gun I can shoot better over a smaller easier to carry gun and shoot my carry gun weekly and compete occasionally with it.

    Most days I carry a duty size gun anyway, so nothing would need to change, hardware wise.

    As for acting, I guess it depends on the situation, if my family is with me they are priority #1 over all else. It's just what it is.

    If they are safe and/or absent I'd like to believe I would feel the call to help if I could, there are too many variables to be able to know for sure
     
    Boarhunter and Styx like this.
  13. Trunk Monkey

    Trunk Monkey Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2011
    Messages:
    2,775
    Location:
    Colorado
    I don't know what the real name of it is but people in Juarez get "shopping visas" to come to El Paso and shop in that mall every week.

    As the other poster said a whole bunch of people in that Walmart we're not citizens and work legally able to carry a gun but they weren't here illegally
     
  14. Trunk Monkey

    Trunk Monkey Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2011
    Messages:
    2,775
    Location:
    Colorado
    That would be wonderful if you would quit lighting up everybody who disagrees with you.
     
    JR24 likes this.
  15. Trunk Monkey

    Trunk Monkey Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2011
    Messages:
    2,775
    Location:
    Colorado
    So based on what I'm reading here you don't actually know if anyone in that Walmart actually had a gun except for the shooter.

    Based on my training which I got from CSPD no one would have left that scene until the police had vetted everybody.

    If anyone in that Walmart was actually carrying concealed handgun legally we would have known about it by now.
     
    Last edited: Aug 15, 2019
  16. Trunk Monkey

    Trunk Monkey Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2011
    Messages:
    2,775
    Location:
    Colorado
    So this whole thread appears to have turned into a debate over what our duty is as permit holders.

    So first of all I have not changed what I carry based on the recent shootings in Ohio and Texas.

    The second thing I want to point out is that my first duty is to my wife. That is Scriptural. God put me in that position and I am positive that he expects me to honor it. You can debate or disagree as you wish but as far as I'm concerned the Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it.

    My wife is disabled. She is not going to be running anywhere. Should I be killed she can't work to support herself. My first Duty is to get her to safety. Everything else is secondary.

    Again, I don't really care if you agree with me or not that's where my focus is going to be and realistically by the time I accomplish that the whole thing will be over anyway
     
    Last edited: Aug 15, 2019
    Boarhunter, huntsman and Styx like this.
  17. 40-82

    40-82 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2013
    Messages:
    396
    It's standard doctrine among anti-gunners that a citizen can't defend himself or anyone else with a gun and if he tries it will only make the situation worse. I can support this. When was the last time I saw a news story describing a citizen fighting and winning? Newspaper accounts tend to be short and terse, and with the details offered I can't tell whether I'm reading about a cold blooded murder or a defensive use of a handgun.

    So, if I draw a weapon in a public venue in the defense of the innocent, I do so in an environment where for the rest of my life a high percentage of the people I encounter will regard that act not as a citizen fulfilling his duties to the innocent, but as morally questionable and self-serving. I'll hear questions like, "Why did you lug that heavy gun around all those years? Didn't you really lust for the chance to kill someone? And you did, the poor disturbed person was just reaching out for help in that final desperate plea. You took a life that was worth turning around, worth saving. Yours, I'm not so sure about."

    Our law is based on Blackstone, and English Common Law, where the right to defend the self and the innocent are assumed. Our culture has shifted. Suppose I look at the world as a bad place with bad people, where I fully contemplate the eventuality that I'm going to use that handgun to kill someone? I just don't know when or where. How different is that from premeditated murder? Legally, that line of thinking holds no water. Culturally, it holds more weight than established law.

    Forty years ago, I would have run to the sound of the shots in the defense of the innocent. The world has changed, as has my appreciation of the complexities and the implications of that kind of decision. Depending upon the information available in the moment, the decision to engage ranges everywhere from a moral imperative to a foolish and impetuous act. Unless the situation unfolds in my direct line of vision, I'm unlikely to have any certain information. Simply the sight of a man in public holding a long gun isn't close to the necessary information needed for a decision to engage

    A very Liberal woman I often speak with tells me that my decision to carry a weapon isn't a public good because I don't make an implicit pact to run to the defense of strangers. She's not entirely right. It's reasonable to assume that there may be a certain umbrella effect for unknown people in a public setting in my immediate line of sight.

    But that argument isn't likely to swing the anti-gunners steeped in years of indoctrination. I can't help but admire her parting hypothetical scenario: "Suppose we were at a sale, I'm grabbing the last item left on the table of something I really want. A big woman grabs it too, and she's about to get it from me. Would you use your gun to defend me and make sure I get it?"

    "No."

    "Then what good is it to me?"
    .
     
  18. JFrame

    JFrame Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Messages:
    1,587
    Location:
    Next to a reclaimed patch of swampland called D.C.
    I'm not sure her parting argument constitutes any more of a rationale than the legal restriction, in most municipalities, which says you can't shoot someone once they cease to be a threat. For instance, say you caught someone burgling your house. The burglar runs out the front door, possibly with some of your possessions. Are you legally permitted to shoot him? Likely, whatever ordinances you live under says "no." That one instance does not invalidate every other reason for having a firearm. Same with the big hypothetical woman. Now add that the woman pulls out a knife and lunges toward the liberal woman. The same scenario, with a new wrinkle, becomes grayer. :)
     
    jstert and 40-82 like this.
  19. 40-82

    40-82 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2013
    Messages:
    396
    Possibly I wasn't clear enough. Her parting scenario was humor and a little bit of hyperbole. What she was suggesting through humor was that in her life a situation where was a gun was necessary wasn't in her mind a possibility. Whereas a situation where a gun might be misused, if it were present, was almost inevitable. It's not easy to break that cycle of believing in experts. Do you need a job done? Plumbing? Car problems? Call an expert. Problems with criminals? Let the police handle it. Can you defend yourself? Defer to the experts. Trusted sources like CNN, the New York Times, have long answered that question in the negative.

    It's something of a shock for a far left Liberal to meet someone like me, a life long gun owner, and realize that I'm not an uneducated knuckle-dragger, spouting cliches--they certainly couldn't distinguish me from that model by the way I look. That I'm human and articulate is almost beyond their experience. Sophisticated arguments based on a statistical or a philosophical model meet disbelief and shocked empty air. I don't have that kind of authority with them. It's a shock when someone discounts your core beliefs. It's already almost more than they can handle when they realize that I'm a gun owner, a life member of the NRA, but I'm not in the Klan and neither am I some kind of white supremacist. It stuns them when they learn that I'm a farmer in the rural south, yet can't name a single neighbor who is in the Klan or a Neo-Nazi.

    If we're going to retain our rights, we have a lot of work to do. Europeans I've met almost invariably say that as oppressive as their governments are they'd prefer the power to rest with them than with their fellow citizens, whom they trust even less.

    We're winning this fight in terms of present advantage, but the ultimate outcome is too uncertain for us to dare ease up.
     
    jstert, Styx and JFrame like this.
  20. JFrame

    JFrame Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Messages:
    1,587
    Location:
    Next to a reclaimed patch of swampland called D.C.
    Thanks for that bit of clarification and context. :thumbup:

    In regard to your point about Europeans -- they could stand to take a few lessons from the people of Hong Kong... :)

    Hong Kong 2.jpg
     
  21. 40-82

    40-82 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2013
    Messages:
    396
    I have a friend in Hong Kong, an Englishman and a writer, and I've been reading what he has to say.

    I have to confess I don't really understand. The best I can make out is that the Mainland Chinese government wants to retain the economic potential of Hong Kong, and to do that they've overlooked some of the freedoms those people assume that never existed on the mainland. But it appears to have come down to a question of which is most important, doctrine and ultimate party supremacy, or economics. It looks like those people are going to get crushed, and for practical purposes there's nothing we can do to help them. I do, though, wish that when I heard a news report from the American media I didn't get the feeling they were in sympathy with the mainland government.
     
    JR24 and JFrame like this.
  22. JohnKSa

    JohnKSa Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2003
    Messages:
    14,851
    Location:
    DFW Area
    What the numbers say is that it was likely that something like 3 dozen people in that store were PERMIT HOLDERS. Part of my point is that many permit holders apparently don't carry, or if they do they don't intervene. My comments have all been about permit holders.
    Name one other mass shooting in the history of the United States where an after-action report was published providing a list of how many people were present, how many had carry permits, how many had firearms, etc.

    The police may know, or they may not, but it's ludicrous to claim that it's standard procedure to publish that kind of information. And as far as the police knowing for sure about everything everyone had at the scene, it's instructive to remember that there is still some debate about the ammunition in some of the guns the agents were carrying in the FBI Miami 1986 shootout even though there were fewer than 10 participants and it was probably one of the most carefully investigated shootouts in history.
    Well, I can't speak for everyone, but from my perspective this is absolutely NOT the point I'm trying to make. As far as I'm concerned, people answer to no one but themselves for deciding whether or not to have a permit. They answer to no one but themselves for deciding whether or not to carry if they do have a permit. They answer to no one but themselves for deciding whether or not to intervene if they are carrying in a mass shooting.

    What I'm saying is very specific. I have, in the past, argued that permit holders are a significant deterrent to mass shootings, and are likely to have a significant beneficial effect on mass shootings. I can not, in good conscience, continue to argue those points. It does not seem that they are a significant deterrent or this guy would have picked from one of many GFZs instead of going into a WalMart in TX. It does not seem that they are likely to have a significant beneficial effect because apparently most of them don't carry, or if they do, they don't intervene.

    I'm not impugning any of the permit holders at the scene or saying that they didn't do their duty. I'm just saying that I want to be honest when I discuss this issue and being honest means not trying to twist the facts to support a point of view--it means just taking the facts as they are and accepting them.

    CAN permit holders make a difference in mass shootings? Of course they can. DO they make a difference in mass shootings? Not very often. And the El Paso shooting highlights that reality.
     
    Texas10mm, 460Shooter and jar like this.
  23. jar

    jar Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2003
    Messages:
    1,216
    Location:
    Texas!!!!!
    Maybe what is needed is a discussion on what the role of a permit holder should reasonably be. Is it to stop the threat or is it somewhat more limited and to be a calm voice in a localized area; a guide and rear guard within a small perimeter limited to a 30 foot radius or so? Should we train to locate exit and shelter points in our immediate area rather than the charge to the sound of gunfire response?
     
  24. Styx

    Styx Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2014
    Messages:
    902
    What "numbers" are you looking at that we haven't seen? And again, even if you are correct (you haven't proven that you are), what does one anecdotal example prove? How many other mass shootings in the U.S. involved permit holders? It may be easier to follow along if we all knew where are you getting your facts from.

    If, by your own admission, police aren't publishing how many permits, firearms, etc, how can you logically come to the conclusion permit holders would not make a difference in mass shootings?
     
    Last edited: Aug 16, 2019
  25. 460Shooter

    460Shooter Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2011
    Messages:
    10,486
    Location:
    The Land that Time Forgot
    As with many things, a discussion of what the role of an armed citizen SHOULD be seems to go down the path of opposing viewpoints ending in deadlock. This thread illustrates that earlier on. But I think you raise an excellent point in the direction that a discussion like that could go. Depending on a person’s individual beliefs in what their role should be, their training should be heavily geared towards that end.

    Some are going to run towards the gun shots. Fine. Some will head for the hills at the first sign of trouble. Fine. Some will try to help those around them opportunistically and have an aggressive defensive stance, but not one of actively seeking engagement. Fine. It’s a personal choice, and a mixture of aggressive engagement and strong defense is likely and logically going to lead to the best outcome, despite any difference in philosophy.

    Training for any of those responses would be very different and a person needs to think that through.
     
    .308 Norma, jar and Styx like this.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice