Skeptic Bob
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2014
- Messages
- 16,626
- Reaction score
- 19,488
- Location
- Texas
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Left
When mass shootings like the one that happened in Orlando occur people on both sides bring up "good guys with guns". Anti-gunners like to use it as an excuse to say, "See, the good guy with a gun claim is a myth." And pro-gunners will say, "If only I was there, or if only more people there were armed he could have been stopped."
I believe in the right to carry concealed. Hell, I am likely alive today because I was armed when I and a colleague found ourselves in a very precarious situation. Good guys with guns save themselves and others on nearly a daily basis in this country. Just go spend some time on Youtube or Google News and you will see that. But these types of mass shootings are a different beast altogether.
Mass shootings like this are usually planned. The shooter has worked out what he is going to do and come up with contingency plans. He targets a gun free zone in order to reduce his chances of encountering armed resistance but he also knows that in any large group there could be an off duty cop or someone authorized to carry. So he will be on the lookout for that. If he is smart, and is armed with a weapon like an AR, then he will be able to maintain a significant distance between himself and his targets in order to reduce the chances of getting tackled by someone before he has a chance to shoot them. This distance also plays against anybody who may be carrying concealed. Most people who carry concealed carry small, compact revolvers or pistols. These are very useful in the more common self-defense scenarios in which you are likely just a few feet from your assailant. When engaging a person armed with a high capacity rifle at a distance, with people running around and screaming, during an adrenaline dump, the odds are stacked against the person with the handgun.
There are some jokes based around the general premise of, "I carry a handgun in case I run into any trouble. But if I was EXPECTING trouble would have brought my rifle." There is a reason for such sayings. A compact handgun, under duress, is very difficult to shoot accurately at anything but the closest distances because the short barrel and short sight distance make for a less accurate shot. And in a real life combat situation your adrenaline will dump. Your hands will shake and you will lose the more fine motor movements. This means a light weight pistol, supported by nothing but your outstretched hands, will not remain steady. A rifle compensates for most of that.
Yes, if you were close enough you could probably have stopped the guy with a handgun. But a prepared mass shooter isn't going to let you get close enough. So I wish both sides would stop bringing up the good guy with a gun trope in these mass shooting scenarios. Concealed carry isn't likely to stop these types of shooters. And these types of shootings aren't proof that concealed carry doesn't work in the more common self-defense scenarios.
"Concealed carry isn't likely to stop these types of shooters."
Well, "no carry" for SURE isn't going to stop 'em.
When mass shootings like the one that happened in Orlando occur people on both sides bring up "good guys with guns". Anti-gunners like to use it as an excuse to say, "See, the good guy with a gun claim is a myth." And pro-gunners will say, "If only I was there, or if only more people there were armed he could have been stopped."
I believe in the right to carry concealed. Hell, I am likely alive today because I was armed when I and a colleague found ourselves in a very precarious situation. Good guys with guns save themselves and others on nearly a daily basis in this country. Just go spend some time on Youtube or Google News and you will see that. But these types of mass shootings are a different beast altogether.
Mass shootings like this are usually planned. The shooter has worked out what he is going to do and come up with contingency plans. He targets a gun free zone in order to reduce his chances of encountering armed resistance but he also knows that in any large group there could be an off duty cop or someone authorized to carry. So he will be on the lookout for that. If he is smart, and is armed with a weapon like an AR, then he will be able to maintain a significant distance between himself and his targets in order to reduce the chances of getting tackled by someone before he has a chance to shoot them. This distance also plays against anybody who may be carrying concealed. Most people who carry concealed carry small, compact revolvers or pistols. These are very useful in the more common self-defense scenarios in which you are likely just a few feet from your assailant. When engaging a person armed with a high capacity rifle at a distance, with people running around and screaming, during an adrenaline dump, the odds are stacked against the person with the handgun.
There are some jokes based around the general premise of, "I carry a handgun in case I run into any trouble. But if I was EXPECTING trouble would have brought my rifle." There is a reason for such sayings. A compact handgun, under duress, is very difficult to shoot accurately at anything but the closest distances because the short barrel and short sight distance make for a less accurate shot. And in a real life combat situation your adrenaline will dump. Your hands will shake and you will lose the more fine motor movements. This means a light weight pistol, supported by nothing but your outstretched hands, will not remain steady. A rifle compensates for most of that.
Yes, if you were close enough you could probably have stopped the guy with a handgun. But a prepared mass shooter isn't going to let you get close enough. So I wish both sides would stop bringing up the good guy with a gun trope in these mass shooting scenarios. Concealed carry isn't likely to stop these types of shooters. And these types of shootings aren't proof that concealed carry doesn't work in the more common self-defense scenarios.
How many times do we hear that an armed citizen cant stop them, but law enforcement do?
In that club shooting we didnt need armed citizens, we needed citizens with a battle/survival mind that says "**** has officially hit the fan...lets go to work" not "oh no run we're all gonna die". Because...in the second case...you are.
When mass shootings like the one that happened in Orlando occur people on both sides bring up "good guys with guns". Anti-gunners like to use it as an excuse to say, "See, the good guy with a gun claim is a myth." And pro-gunners will say, "If only I was there, or if only more people there were armed he could have been stopped."
I believe in the right to carry concealed. Hell, I am likely alive today because I was armed when I and a colleague found ourselves in a very precarious situation. Good guys with guns save themselves and others on nearly a daily basis in this country. Just go spend some time on Youtube or Google News and you will see that. But these types of mass shootings are a different beast altogether.
Mass shootings like this are usually planned. The shooter has worked out what he is going to do and come up with contingency plans. He targets a gun free zone in order to reduce his chances of encountering armed resistance but he also knows that in any large group there could be an off duty cop or someone authorized to carry. So he will be on the lookout for that. If he is smart, and is armed with a weapon like an AR, then he will be able to maintain a significant distance between himself and his targets in order to reduce the chances of getting tackled by someone before he has a chance to shoot them. This distance also plays against anybody who may be carrying concealed. Most people who carry concealed carry small, compact revolvers or pistols. These are very useful in the more common self-defense scenarios in which you are likely just a few feet from your assailant. When engaging a person armed with a high capacity rifle at a distance, with people running around and screaming, during an adrenaline dump, the odds are stacked against the person with the handgun.
There are some jokes based around the general premise of, "I carry a handgun in case I run into any trouble. But if I was EXPECTING trouble would have brought my rifle." There is a reason for such sayings. A compact handgun, under duress, is very difficult to shoot accurately at anything but the closest distances because the short barrel and short sight distance make for a less accurate shot. And in a real life combat situation your adrenaline will dump. Your hands will shake and you will lose the more fine motor movements. This means a light weight pistol, supported by nothing but your outstretched hands, will not remain steady. A rifle compensates for most of that.
Yes, if you were close enough you could probably have stopped the guy with a handgun. But a prepared mass shooter isn't going to let you get close enough. So I wish both sides would stop bringing up the good guy with a gun trope in these mass shooting scenarios. Concealed carry isn't likely to stop these types of shooters. And these types of shootings aren't proof that concealed carry doesn't work in the more common self-defense scenarios.
When you check the statistics regarding officer engagements vs private citizen engagements, Citizens fare better with regard to shots on target vs bystanders. I'll grant there are contributing and extenuating circumstances. Still...it just doesnt make sense to claim "citizens cant stop these sorts of incidents...better call a cop".I can locate & shoot better than a few of my police friends...........no bragging either, as it took a lot of practice and learning. The Seals taught me quite a bit during my time working on their boats.
"Concealed carry isn't likely to stop these types of shooters."
Well, "no carry" for SURE isn't going to stop 'em.
When you check the statistics regarding officer engagements vs private citizen engagements, Citizens fare better with regard to shots on target vs bystanders. I'll grant there are contributing and extenuating circumstances. Still...it just doesnt make sense to claim "citizens cant stop these sorts of incidents...better call a cop".
Why can't Flogger understand this?
because crime control has nothing to do with the jihad against our rights, IMHO
I agree with most everything you brought up. But I will take exception with you comment on a shooters distance when it comes to running into a CC.When mass shootings like the one that happened in Orlando occur people on both sides bring up "good guys with guns". Anti-gunners like to use it as an excuse to say, "See, the good guy with a gun claim is a myth." And pro-gunners will say, "If only I was there, or if only more people there were armed he could have been stopped."
I believe in the right to carry concealed. Hell, I am likely alive today because I was armed when I and a colleague found ourselves in a very precarious situation. Good guys with guns save themselves and others on nearly a daily basis in this country. Just go spend some time on Youtube or Google News and you will see that. But these types of mass shootings are a different beast altogether.
Mass shootings like this are usually planned. The shooter has worked out what he is going to do and come up with contingency plans. He targets a gun free zone in order to reduce his chances of encountering armed resistance but he also knows that in any large group there could be an off duty cop or someone authorized to carry. So he will be on the lookout for that. If he is smart, and is armed with a weapon like an AR, then he will be able to maintain a significant distance between himself and his targets in order to reduce the chances of getting tackled by someone before he has a chance to shoot them. This distance also plays against anybody who may be carrying concealed. Most people who carry concealed carry small, compact revolvers or pistols. These are very useful in the more common self-defense scenarios in which you are likely just a few feet from your assailant. When engaging a person armed with a high capacity rifle at a distance, with people running around and screaming, during an adrenaline dump, the odds are stacked against the person with the handgun.
There are some jokes based around the general premise of, "I carry a handgun in case I run into any trouble. But if I was EXPECTING trouble would have brought my rifle." There is a reason for such sayings. A compact handgun, under duress, is very difficult to shoot accurately at anything but the closest distances because the short barrel and short sight distance make for a less accurate shot. And in a real life combat situation your adrenaline will dump. Your hands will shake and you will lose the more fine motor movements. This means a light weight pistol, supported by nothing but your outstretched hands, will not remain steady. A rifle compensates for most of that.
Yes, if you were close enough you could probably have stopped the guy with a handgun. But a prepared mass shooter isn't going to let you get close enough. So I wish both sides would stop bringing up the good guy with a gun trope in these mass shooting scenarios. Concealed carry isn't likely to stop these types of shooters. And these types of shootings aren't proof that concealed carry doesn't work in the more common self-defense scenarios.
No I just take a stand against wilful hypocrisy wherever I see it and its nowhere more evident than on this sub forum
This might be the sort of society you want to see but I doubt the bulk of your countrymen do
View attachment 67202831
No I just take a stand against wilful hypocrisy wherever I see it and its nowhere more evident than on this sub forum
This might be the sort of society you want to see but I doubt the bulk of your countrymen do
View attachment 67202831
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?