Concealed Carry Logic

[Idontdotrix]

Although, I disagree that being submissive to a violent aggressor is more likely to placate them and make them go away. Rather, being submissive and obedient to a dominative aggressor tends to encourage abuse, resulting in greater injury inflicted. On the other hand, resisting with physical force tends to end badly, too, unless you are physically more powerful than the aggressor... which is where being able to shoot back comes into play.

I train dogs for a living. not just cuddly lil fluffy things to sit n stay n not pee on the carpets, I get the hard cases. the aggressive, dominant dogs whose last stop before a big pink needle is often me.

when I get a new client dog and he growls or snaps at me, allowing him to continue this behavior, uncorrected, is only going to 1) show him what he is doing is effective and 2) set the stage for a worse response if he is eventually denied by someone else. failure to stop the behavior enforces the animal's belief his behavior is justified.

physically these guys have got a lot on me. I'm no lil bitty chicka- I'm a shade under six feet in height and weigh about 165, in pretty good shape, but let me tell you that is [NOTHING/B] compared to 120lbs of bred-to-kill-bears muscle, agility and speed. not to mention the teeth. when your opponent has jaws that can easily crush bone you need to level the field FAST.

I have to show them from minute one I am not intimidated. I use the tools at my disposal (leashes, crates, verbal tone, physical 'roll' and other pack corrective behavior techniques) to rank me higher in their eyes- and therefore, not one to be messed with. if I back down and act like a victim, they will walk all over me- and probably leave big gaping holes in the process.

when I finish working with a dog, they are what I like to call bulletproof- they are ready to face the world and believe that their families- and the people around them- have authority over them, they believe that the people around them have the ability to correct them and put them back into place just like I do- and they don't consider going back to the bad behaviors bc they have learned here it is going to be met with swift resistance and quick consequences.

roll over if you want out there, but I'm not going to. you may not be the one to get bitten but sooner or later, someone else will, and you did nothing to stop it.

 

[JakesKTM]

I carried a firearm for 9 years, a Glock 23, w/ 15 round mags. On or off duty, at any given time I was armed with 45 rounds of potentially deadly force. Prior to that, I never shot a gun in my life. I came to law enforcement a complete noob and went through basic and advanced firearms training and became very proficient with the weapon, both in tactical shooting and scenario shoot/don't shoot drills. I took arming very serious and maintained situational awareness at all times. When I left law enforcement I never replaced my firearm and never applied for a CCW. Here's my logic....

The only time I felt I needed to be armed, if at all, was during the course of my employment as LEO and maybe at home in the middle of the night (if that). Off duty I carried, but only due to my peace officer status and obligation to act if I encountered a situation where I had to respond. However, I left that obligation behind with the badge. I have a Benelli Super 90 12 g. for home invasion if it ever occurs (unlikely). So the question became...do I need to carry a gun around in public? To me the answer was "not really." The police are armed and I've been trained to use my verbal skills to diffuse a potentially hostile situation. I don't consider myself a victim by any means by not having a CCW or firearm and believe that there ought to be more training and consistency regarding arming of the general public. Beyond that, guns need to be controlled so that they do not fall into the hands of bad guys. That simple.

A citizen w/ a CCW and a gun is equally as dangerous to the general public as a bad guy with intent on escalating a situation to deadly force. Why create a scenario that has potential to make more vicitms out of the situation?

 

[tuxumino]

Carrying a gun for self defense, being able to get it out of it's holster or purse and then using it in time to defend yourself are three different things.
If you were walking down your street a couple of blocks form your home and a knife wielding madman jumped out of the shrubbery 10 feet in front of you, with his blade already drawn, do you think youd be able to get your firearm out and be able to use it before you were stabbed?
I can't find the videos where cops , in a training excercise, are trying to unholster their sidearms before the assailant can use the knife against them, most fail. Those are people trained to deploy thier weapon quickly.
In most self defense situations, I bet, the victim has a second or less to react to the attack, if not I believe there is enough clues in advance to let you know that you need to vacate the area.

 

[macadamizer]

Try walking in a chicka's high heeled shoes for a day. not every violent act against another human being is motivated by money.

I support CCW's- with appropriate training and education. Not everyone should be driving a car either, there should be standards and there are standards. Maybe we need to improve them but let's start where we can and make things a little safer for the good guys. In a perfect society, law enforcement would be available at any time to assist a citizen in need. Now, even for many violent, invasive crimes, you cannot get a real officer to help you in real time, and often get directed to a website to fill out a complaint there.

the world is not the place it used to be.

Like I said before, I support concealed carry for anyone who wants to do it, and qualifies for a permit (which should be shall-issue, meaning everyone gets one unless they are banned from owning a gun in the first place). My only point was that for most people who honestly assess their risks, the total hassle would outweigh the benefits of concealed carry.

 

[macadamizer]

roll over if you want out there, but I'm not going to. you may not be the one to get bitten but sooner or later, someone else will, and you did nothing to stop it.

I don't know, it's not my responsibility to train random other humans to place nice in society. That's what cops are paid to do, not me. If I get into a situation like this, all I care about is getting out with the least harm to myself -- I don't care at all about trying to improve society as a whole at that point.

Sure, if it's YOUR dog, or YOUR kid, you have responsibility -- but I don't think that's the situation we are talking about here.

 

[JakesKTM]

Carrying a gun for self defense, being able to get it out of it's holster or purse and then using it in time to defend yourself are three different things.
If you were walking down your street a couple of blocks form your home and a knife wielding madman jumped out of the shrubbery 10 feet in front of you, with his blade already drawn, do you think youd be able to get your firearm out and be able to use it before you were stabbed?
I can't find the videos where cops , in a training excercise, are trying to unholster their sidearms before the assailant can use the knife against them, most fail. Those are people trained to deploy thier weapon quickly.
In most self defense situations, I bet, the victim has a second or less to react to the attack, if not I believe there is enough clues in advance to let you know that you need to vacate the area.

You bring up a great point here also....

LEO are trained in verious levels of non-lethal force. Not everyone is going to come at you with a gun, so LEO carries pepper spray, baton, tazer. and receives hand to hand/tactical restraint combat (weaponless defense) training, and verbal skills training.

I never understood why Joe Q Public can carry a gun without the same requirement for training, which essentially gives Joe Public no alternatives but deadly force. Not that Joe Public's role is to enforce, but even in a defesnsive scenario, what...just pull the gun out and shoot? Why not simply run away??

 

[zefflyn]

A citizen w/ a CCW and a gun is equally as dangerous to the general public as a bad guy with intent on escalating a situation to deadly force.

Why create a scenario that has potential to make more vicitms out of the situation?

You don't want the poor bad guy getting hurt? It's better when only the law-abiding victim gets hurt?

I never understood why Joe Q Public can carry a gun without the same requirement for training, which essentially gives Joe Public no alternatives but deadly force. Not that Joe Public's role is to enforce, but even in a defesnsive scenario, what...just pull the gun out and shoot? Why not simply run away??

That's easy - LEOs go looking for trouble, and actively confront bad guys. In addition, the public at large got sick of police shooting everyone they had a hard time with. (And now, the public is getting unhappy about how cops taze everyone they have a hard time with. )

In exactly the opposite way, criminals go looking for victims. By simply looking at crime stats and seeing the quantities of victims, it should be obvious that it is not always possible to just run away, otherwise there would be no crime victims, because they all would have gotten away.

 

[JakesKTM]

You don't want the poor bad guy getting hurt? It's better when only the law-abiding victim gets hurt?

I don't care about the bad guy. But the CCW carrying Joe who takes it upon his or herself to "respond" with deadly force is now jeapordizing everyone within striking range of his/her firearm and "more than likely" does not have the adequate training and skills to be more than 2% accurate with the firearm in a combat scenario and will likely inflict more harm before the scenario ends.

Case in point.... a citizen outside a grocery store parking lot in San Diego spots armed suspects coming out of store and takes it upon himself to shoot at them. His bullet misses, ricochets under a nearby vehicle fatally striking an 8 year old girl who was barricaded with her father behind their vehicle.

 

[Idontdotrix]

I never understood why Joe Q Public can carry a gun without the same requirement for training, which essentially gives Joe Public no alternatives but deadly force. Not that Joe Public's role is to enforce, but even in a defesnsive scenario, what...just pull the gun out and shoot? Why not simply run away??

a number of security companies are qualified to train people in use of non lethal forms of defense including chemical deterrents and batons- you actually need a permit ,issued after one of these courses, to carry one ( or pepper spray over a specific size or potency).

+ on more training, excellent point

 

[JakesKTM]

:By simply looking at crime stats and seeing the quantities of victims, it should be obvious that it is not always possible to just run away, otherwise there would be no crime victims, because they all would have gotten away.

I used the run away option to make the point. Obviously being held captive changes the situational options. But again, not every theft, burglary, robbery, purse snatching, carjacking, etc. is a deadly force scenario. In fact statistically, most property crimes whether personal or not, are non-violent.

 

[macadamizer]

Case in point.... a citizen outside a grocery store parking lot in San Diego spots armed suspects coming out of store and takes it upon himself to shoot at them. His bullet misses, ricochets under a nearby vehicle fatally striking an 8 year old girl who was barricaded with her father behind their vehicle.

And this goes back to one of my earlier points -- when doing the calculus to determine whether or not concealed carry is worth it or not, you have to consider what happens if you make a mistake. Sure, if the guy had taken out the robbers, maybe this would have turned out A-OK.* But he made a mistake, missed the target, and now he is most likely going to get charged with some sort of negligent homicide -- and even if he doesn't, he is going to be sued into bankruptcy by the family of the girl he killed.

He didn't intend for this to happen, of course, and he thought he was doing the right thing -- but someone is dead, who wouldn't be dead but for his actions, and he will have to account for that legally, either by going to prison, paying a huge settlement or judgement, or perhaps both.

That's the sort of thing one needs to consider when deciding whether or not to carry a firearm. It not the end when the cops show up to find you with a gun in your hand and the bad guy dead on the ground -- it can be just the begining.

*And this assumes that the shooter had the authority, under California law, to shoot in the first place. Just because someone else has a gun does not automatically turn the situation into a self-defense situation where you are free to escalate to deadly force -- it can be, but it is not automatic.

 

[motoproponent]

I hate getting pulled into sink posts. but when I'm bored at work I sometimes keep tabs on this little corner of barf.

I think untill anyone has ever been in genuine fear for their life, or in a position to have to end one it's all wild speculation. People throw around CCW like it's nothing. It's a lot more responsibility than I think people realize from the posts I've read. You can't drink, you have to be aware so that you keep it actually concealed, you can't nap and you shouldn't be bopping around with your ipod blairing.

My feeling on the CCW is it clouds people's idea of the last resort. Realizing that YOU will be the one to escalate the situation to a deadly force scenario if you draw a firearm is the point I think most miss. You get tunnel vision on the gun instead of looking for an escape route, getting a good look at the suspect, their car, plate number, etc.

If all you have is your wits to save your life you will use them. Having a gun will only make you feel like the corner market, in the shitty part of town, isn't a bad place to pick up a pack of smokes at 2AM.

You're only a victim if you're dead or a shitty witness.

 

[JakesKTM]

That's the sort of thing one needs to consider when deciding whether or not to carry a firearm. It not the end when the cops show up to find you with a gun in your hand and the bad guy dead on the ground -- it can be just the begining.

exactly why I chose not to carry. I am not civilly protected to the same extent LEO is when things go bad. IMO, carrying a firearm as a citizen invites more trouble than it deters.

 

[zefflyn]

I don't care about the bad guy. But the CCW carrying Joe who takes it upon his or herself to "respond" with deadly force is now jeapordizing everyone within striking range of his/her firearm and "more than likely" does not have the adequate training and skills to be more than 2% accurate with the firearm in a combat scenario and will likely inflict more harm before the scenario ends.

Case in point.... a citizen outside a grocery store parking lot in San Diego spots armed suspects coming out of store and takes it upon himself to shoot at them. His bullet misses, ricochets under a nearby vehicle fatally striking an 8 year old girl who was barricaded with her father behind their vehicle.

And yet, paradoxically, police shoot more innocent bystanders than armed citizens do, and police have a much lower rate of hits on target than the average citizen.

 

[Eldritch]

Carrying a gun for self defense, being able to get it out of it's holster or purse and then using it in time to defend yourself are three different things.
If you were walking down your street a couple of blocks form your home and a knife wielding madman jumped out of the shrubbery 10 feet in front of you, with his blade already drawn, do you think youd be able to get your firearm out and be able to use it before you were stabbed?
I can't find the videos where cops , in a training excercise, are trying to unholster their sidearms before the assailant can use the knife against them, most fail. Those are people trained to deploy thier weapon quickly.
In most self defense situations, I bet, the victim has a second or less to react to the attack, if not I believe there is enough clues in advance to let you know that you need to vacate the area.

True, you should try and stay out of a dangerous situation, but once you have been confronted, I believe you should never retreat from a dangerous assailant, never give him an inch of ground, never show him a moment of fear (no matter how much you may feel it) and sure as hell never give him some of your property if killing, maiming or otherwise resolving the attackers choice to invalidate his life has been made available.

 

[zefflyn]

He didn't intend for this to happen, of course, and he thought he was doing the right thing -- but someone is dead, who wouldn't be dead but for his actions, and he will have to account for that legally, either by going to prison, paying a huge settlement or judgement, or perhaps both.

Not to mention having that on one's conscience. Even when justified, it's a hard thing to live with.

 

[macadamizer]

Not to mention having that on one's conscience. Even when justified, it's a hard thing to live with.

Couldn't agree more.

Like I've said before, I support "shall issue" permits -- I just won't be carrying myself.

 

[954Rider]

It looks like there are more supporters for CCW than against in here. So why can't a bill in CA be passed to remedy this situation we have in the Bay Area with The Sheriff's protecting their Do Not Issue policies? In the outlying areas like Tahoe, Shasta, people get CCW's without poilitical struggles.

 

[JakesKTM]

And yet, paradoxically, police shoot more innocent bystanders than armed citizens do, and police have a much lower rate of hits on target than the average citizen.

I would have to disagree and ask you show me the stats you are citing. When I went through firearms training, it was my expreience that "Yes" during combat tactical shooting scenarios, the average hit rate was somehwere in the neighborhood of less than 10% in most cases. However, it was far lower for the bad guy who never trains and fires his weapon under tactical scenarios, and the same for average citizens who train shooting paper targets at rest.

When I was trained, we had to shoot in hogan's alley environments after running a 100 yard dash. What was my hit rate? Not very good!
But I can guarantee the average CCW citizen does not train with their pistola nearly enough to be as accurate as a "most" cops. And as far as hitting innocent bystanders, well absent any proof I will offer a generalized statement assuming it possible that bystanders get caught up: Police are first responders and it's their job to enforce. It goes without saying there would be more collateral damage (if you will), however LEO is trained adequately in firearms use. Where they lack training is in social skills and being able to talk through a hostile situation

 

[macadamizer]

It looks like there are more supporters for CCW than against in here. So why can't a bill in CA be passed to remedy this situation we have in the Bay Area with The Sheriff's protecting their Do Not Issue policies? In the outlying areas like Tahoe, Shasta, people get CCW's without poilitical struggles.

Probably because the population of folks on this thread, or in the Sink as a whole, is not a representative sample of the state as a whole.