Conceal-carry gun owners stop four separate robbery attempts

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am absolutely not in favor of armed civilians trying to stop crimes with concealed weapons. That's a recipe for violence.

Yes, violence directed toward criminals.

I am a gun owner and CCW permit holder and worked with federal LEOs (management) for 20+ years.

The sentiment above (justifying free-firing civilians as "violence aimed at criminals") is just ignorant.

The fact is that even trained LEOs who must qualify at least quarterly are far from inaccurate in real life live-fire situations (firefights). The general standard is they hit the target approx. 25% of the time. That means that 75% of rounds fired are going elsewhere, including at innocent bystanders (who can also be hit by shots that hit the target and go through and through).

The likelihood of an untrained, or even somewhat trained civilian hitting the mark under real-life stress is slim.

For every anecdotal story of someone stopping a crime with a gun one can come up with as many or more of guns injuring and killing people in other situations including negligent discharges, intentional assaults, etc. So the anecdotes are pretty worthless as anything more than random samples. The "violence aimed at criminals" also results in grievous collateral damage in numerous cases.

It's easy to have big balls and act like you know a lot but those of us who have been shot at, or investigated and analyzed real life live fire situations (I've had both experiences) know that most of the assumptions thrown about in the OP are meaningless.

So because you or others may have more training on how to use firearms, that makes it ok to deny private citizens the right to shoot back when criminals are shooting at them and the police are minutes away?

Wife of LEO here.

MOST LEO will tell you that they do not like CCW laws (and OCW either). It makes it almost impossibe to tell who is who. In the firefight hypothetical that you raised...when the police pull up and you have your gun drawn, there is decent chance that they mistake YOU for the criminal.

Dies your husband carry his gun when he's off duty and out of uniform? Of course he does.

Actually he does about 50% of the time. But he has his credentials with him 100% of the time and he IS a trained LEO. Bottom line is the MOST front line on the ground LEO's do not want your armed help.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am absolutely not in favor of armed civilians trying to stop crimes with concealed weapons. That's a recipe for violence.

Yes, violence directed toward criminals.

I am a gun owner and CCW permit holder and worked with federal LEOs (management) for 20+ years.

The sentiment above (justifying free-firing civilians as "violence aimed at criminals") is just ignorant.

The fact is that even trained LEOs who must qualify at least quarterly are far from inaccurate in real life live-fire situations (firefights). The general standard is they hit the target approx. 25% of the time. That means that 75% of rounds fired are going elsewhere, including at innocent bystanders (who can also be hit by shots that hit the target and go through and through).

The likelihood of an untrained, or even somewhat trained civilian hitting the mark under real-life stress is slim.

For every anecdotal story of someone stopping a crime with a gun one can come up with as many or more of guns injuring and killing people in other situations including negligent discharges, intentional assaults, etc. So the anecdotes are pretty worthless as anything more than random samples. The "violence aimed at criminals" also results in grievous collateral damage in numerous cases.

It's easy to have big balls and act like you know a lot but those of us who have been shot at, or investigated and analyzed real life live fire situations (I've had both experiences) know that most of the assumptions thrown about in the OP are meaningless.

So because you or others may have more training on how to use firearms, that makes it ok to deny private citizens the right to shoot back when criminals are shooting at them and the police are minutes away?

Nice try at a red herring rewrite but no sale.

Your comment embodies the foolishness of the deluded. You think you'll fire away, on target, like on TV. You better have a lot of insurance and be prepared to accept your liability because one stray shot and you will face liability that will likely cost you a good chunk of your net worth.

Your point is just foolish, harping on the two extremes of the spectrum without any sense of nuance, proportion or understanding of the law or the realities of such situations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am absolutely not in favor of armed civilians trying to stop crimes with concealed weapons. That's a recipe for violence.

Yes, violence directed toward criminals.

I am a gun owner and CCW permit holder and worked with federal LEOs (management) for 20+ years.

The sentiment above (justifying free-firing civilians as "violence aimed at criminals") is just ignorant.

The fact is that even trained LEOs who must qualify at least quarterly are far from inaccurate in real life live-fire situations (firefights). The general standard is they hit the target approx. 25% of the time. That means that 75% of rounds fired are going elsewhere, including at innocent bystanders (who can also be hit by shots that hit the target and go through and through).

The likelihood of an untrained, or even somewhat trained civilian hitting the mark under real-life stress is slim.

For every anecdotal story of someone stopping a crime with a gun one can come up with as many or more of guns injuring and killing people in other situations including negligent discharges, intentional assaults, etc. So the anecdotes are pretty worthless as anything more than random samples. The "violence aimed at criminals" also results in grievous collateral damage in numerous cases.

It's easy to have big balls and act like you know a lot but those of us who have been shot at, or investigated and analyzed real life live fire situations (I've had both experiences) know that most of the assumptions thrown about in the OP are meaningless.

So because you or others may have more training on how to use firearms, that makes it ok to deny private citizens the right to shoot back when criminals are shooting at them and the police are minutes away?

Wife of LEO here.

MOST LEO will tell you that they do not like CCW laws (and OCW either). It makes it almost impossibe to tell who is who. In the firefight hypothetical that you raised...when the police pull up and you have your gun drawn, there is decent chance that they mistake YOU for the criminal.

Dies your husband carry his gun when he's off duty and out of uniform? Of course he does.

Actually he does about 50% of the time. But he has his credentials with him 100% of the time and he IS a trained LEO. Bottom line is the MOST front line on the ground LEO's do not want your armed help.

Exactly. The trained LEOs I worked with for 20+ years know how hard it is to deal with these situations without having to worry about a bunch of untrained (for all practical purposes) "barrelsuckers" (as the wannabes are called) acting out on site.

And most of the LEOs I know also don't carry frequently when off-duty -- of course they carry their creds 100% of the time.

The most recent justified shooting analysis I participated in had something like 30+ shots fired by 2 LEOs at fairly close range. IIRC 3-4 hit the target (not fatally) ... Roger Rambo Citizen isn't going to do even that well in most cases.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Multiple weapon owner here.

OP, what about the CCW holder in Michigan who fired indiscriminately at shoplifters in a crowded Home Depot parking lot? Not even the security personnel thought it was prudent to fire at the suspect in a CROWDED parking lot. Luckily, the police arrested HER and she was charged with reckless endangerment. During my cert training, the instructor spent a lot time telling us that drawing the weapon is the last resort and should actually be avoided at all cost. So, yea, I would not want to be shopping with my kids and have some bozo draw their weapon to fire at a shoplifter.

Besides that, I thought that statistically, open carry was a bigger crime deterrent under the theory that the criminal can see that folks are carrying. At least, that is what the NRA literature said. LOL

Is it worth accidentally shooting some innocent bystander in the head just because some thug is trying to run off with a shoplifted $20 item? Is human life in America really so worthless that we'd throw lives away for $20?

As I said earlier, when you're carrying a hammer, everything looks like a nail. The shoplifter, the guy texting during the previews for a movie, the guy shopping in the Wal-mart, the woman asking for help after an accident, the guys playing loud music in the parking lot, the guy walking home with Skittles and iced tea... The list goes on and on.

Your sensationalizing incidences while ignoring the raw data which clearly shows increased conceal carry permits did not lead to increased murders.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Exactly. The trained LEOs ....

In almost all cases the trained LEOs don't arrive until after the shooting is over and innocent people are already dead.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Exactly. The trained LEOs ....

In almost all cases the trained LEOs don't arrive until after the shooting is over and innocent people are already dead.

You know what...nevermind.

You are already irrationally wedded to your POV. So carry your weapon, keep up on your training and keep your liability and life insurance in place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Exactly. The trained LEOs ....

In almost all cases the trained LEOs don't arrive until after the shooting is over and innocent people are already dead.

You know what...nevermind.

You are already irrationally wedded to your POV. So carry your weapon, keep up on your training and keep your liability and life insurance in place.

And you keep missing the point... I'm not irrationally wedded to anything, I'm simply speaking from experience of nearly 30 yrs. And you don't read carefully -- I don't carry (I managed LEOs, I am not a sworn LEO myself, I have a CCW but I rarely, if ever carry because I -- unlike you and others -- understand the realities of making that decision and generally choose not to use the authority I have). I do train, and I do have insurance.

The last thing I want is the likes of you or anyone on DCUM trying to "save" me thinking they know what they hell they're doing.

Keep on indulging, however, in your fantasy that if only we are all armed, we will stop legions of bad guys without creating carnage among collateral casualties.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Multiple weapon owner here.

OP, what about the CCW holder in Michigan who fired indiscriminately at shoplifters in a crowded Home Depot parking lot? Not even the security personnel thought it was prudent to fire at the suspect in a CROWDED parking lot. Luckily, the police arrested HER and she was charged with reckless endangerment. During my cert training, the instructor spent a lot time telling us that drawing the weapon is the last resort and should actually be avoided at all cost. So, yea, I would not want to be shopping with my kids and have some bozo draw their weapon to fire at a shoplifter.

Besides that, I thought that statistically, open carry was a bigger crime deterrent under the theory that the criminal can see that folks are carrying. At least, that is what the NRA literature said. LOL

Is it worth accidentally shooting some innocent bystander in the head just because some thug is trying to run off with a shoplifted $20 item? Is human life in America really so worthless that we'd throw lives away for $20?

No, it's about being able to protect yourself from the typical young men who think nothing of taking another human being's life.

http://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/54014523-story

http://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/54014523-story

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Multiple weapon owner here.

OP, what about the CCW holder in Michigan who fired indiscriminately at shoplifters in a crowded Home Depot parking lot? Not even the security personnel thought it was prudent to fire at the suspect in a CROWDED parking lot. Luckily, the police arrested HER and she was charged with reckless endangerment. During my cert training, the instructor spent a lot time telling us that drawing the weapon is the last resort and should actually be avoided at all cost. So, yea, I would not want to be shopping with my kids and have some bozo draw their weapon to fire at a shoplifter.

Besides that, I thought that statistically, open carry was a bigger crime deterrent under the theory that the criminal can see that folks are carrying. At least, that is what the NRA literature said. LOL

Is it worth accidentally shooting some innocent bystander in the head just because some thug is trying to run off with a shoplifted $20 item? Is human life in America really so worthless that we'd throw lives away for $20?

No, it's about being able to protect yourself from the typical young men who think nothing of taking another human being's life.

http://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/54014523-story

http://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/54014523-story

LMAO! Yeah, and you think you're protecting yourself from them with concealed carry out there in the hinterlands of America. Gangsta thugs are hidin' out behind the sagebrush in Wyoming, yo! Gangsta thugs gonna jump yo ass as you leave the Old Country Buffet out in suburban Ohio!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
LMAO! Yeah, and you think you're protecting yourself from them with concealed carry out there in the hinterlands of America. Gangsta thugs are hidin' out behind the sagebrush in Wyoming, yo! Gangsta thugs gonna jump yo ass as you leave the Old Country Buffet out in suburban Ohio!

Are you claiming there is no crime or murders in rural America?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
LMAO! Yeah, and you think you're protecting yourself from them with concealed carry out there in the hinterlands of America. Gangsta thugs are hidin' out behind the sagebrush in Wyoming, yo! Gangsta thugs gonna jump yo ass as you leave the Old Country Buffet out in suburban Ohio!

Are you claiming there is no crime or murders in rural America?

Sure, there's crime. But not the kind of crime that all of the heat-packin' Charles Bronson wanna-be's are imagining. And I should know, I grew up in rural America before becoming more worldly, wise and street-smart.

I can't imagine any of the resident concealed-carry advocates even living inside the city limits of a city that actually has real crime. They would hide indoors with their teeth chattering and butts clenched. And if they ever did actually go out on the street and encounter some hooligan, forget the gun, they would just shit their pants on the spot, and the thug would go running away from the stench.

[Anonymous]

That's not a knife.....this is a knife

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
LMAO! Yeah, and you think you're protecting yourself from them with concealed carry out there in the hinterlands of America. Gangsta thugs are hidin' out behind the sagebrush in Wyoming, yo! Gangsta thugs gonna jump yo ass as you leave the Old Country Buffet out in suburban Ohio!

Are you claiming there is no crime or murders in rural America?

Just stay home with your guns, then. It must be hard to be in the grips of such fear and paranoia-- only feeling "safe" in public with a loaded weapon. Shut yourself in before the bad guys come and you end up murdering someone for shoplifting a case of beer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
LMAO! Yeah, and you think you're protecting yourself from them with concealed carry out there in the hinterlands of America. Gangsta thugs are hidin' out behind the sagebrush in Wyoming, yo! Gangsta thugs gonna jump yo ass as you leave the Old Country Buffet out in suburban Ohio!

Are you claiming there is no crime or murders in rural America?

Just stay home with your guns, then. It must be hard to be in the grips of such fear and paranoia-- only feeling "safe" in public with a loaded weapon. Shut yourself in before the bad guys come and you end up murdering someone for shoplifting a case of beer.

I guess everyone is in the grip of fear and paranoid. Yourself included since you seem to be showing the same fears and paranoia of being accidentally shot by someone legally carrying a concealed handgun.

[Anonymous]

Everyone in this threat is bantering about irrelevant matters and is missing the most important point. The THREAT of firearms, as opposed to their actual use, is what prevents crime. In other words, criminals are less likely to rob people or burglarize homes in areas with legal concealed carry and in home gun ownership is common. The studies are clear on this. This is why I strongly support gun rights but I likely will never own a gun myself. I'm just happy to live in an area where crime is much lower than it otherwise would be.