8 ms·

I legitimately cannot decide what scares me more, the thought of a mass shooting, or the thought of a bunch of "heroes" with a concealed carry cross-firing. Ma

I legitimately cannot decide what scares me more, the thought of a mass shooting, or the thought of a bunch of "heroes" with a concealed carry cross-firing. Mark my words, one day a mass shooting will occur, someone will pull out their concealed carry, and a second concealed carry person will come around the corner and shoot the first (or the police will). Once there is panic and an unknown threat, adding more guns into the formula (particular without a uniform to go along with it) will only cause additional confusion.

bitJericho 12y ago
Yep, that sounds like normal fear-mongering to me.
- untog 12y ago
  Not really. Even trained police officers often hurt bystanders when firing their weapons: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/26/nyregion/bystanders-shooting-wounds-caused-by-the-police.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/26/nyregion/bystanders-shooti... If a trained cop does it, I think it is legitimate to be concerned about a member of the public firing their weapon, no matter what their intent.
  - hga 12y ago
    This is what happens when you extinguish a region's gun culture, as NY/NYC has done starting in 1911. You have "leaders" who both hate and don't understand guns and their use, outfit their men with poor tools (the infamous New York Trigger), and and those men's only experience with guns is very very limited training. Turns out citizens legally carrying concealed have a much better record. Given how anti-gun the MSM is, do you doubt for a second that if citizens had comitted such an atrocity it wouldn't be nationwide, probably world wide screaming headlines? Your concern is perhaps legitimate, but not after I point out the above.
    - untog 12y ago
      I'm sorry, but that's total nonsense. A much better record of what? Citizens legally carrying concealed weapons are rarely called upon to fire weapons in stressful situations with dozens of bystanders, so they only have a "better record" of doing so by virtue of having no record at all. "Gun culture" has absolutely nothing to do with trained police officers. New NYPD recruits go through 13 days of firearm training, and submit to semi-annual requalifications[1]. People with carry permits are never faced with the kind of stressful situation that an active shooter would provoke. It's utter lunacy to think that they would be able to stay calm and diffuse the situation. [1] http://home2.nyc.gov/html/nypd/html/training_nypd/firearm_tatics.shtml http://home2.nyc.gov/html/nypd/html/training_nypd/firearm_ta...
      - hga 12y ago
        Afraid the RAND institute disagrees with you WRT NYC, e.g. http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG717.html http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG717.html Look, NYC is infamous about cops handling their weapons poorly. I thought everyone who pays attention to current events knew this, but I guess I was wrong. As for your claim that we never face these stressful situations, that's flatly false. Guns are used ~ 2 million times a year to stop crimes (probably more now, those figures are some years old), and there are a number of active shooters who've been stopped by citizen concealed carriers. But you of course wouldn't know of them because the national MSM for some inexplicable reason doesn't report these incidents. If your Google Fu is up to snuff you can find them. Try including "mall" and "church" for starters
      - jessaustin 12y ago
        New NYPD recruits go through 13 days of firearm training... Is that impressive? The cops in flyover country come to the job with quite a bit more experience than that. 10-15 years of hunting, target shooting, safety training in school at multiple grade levels, and the supervision of experienced adults probably doesn't completely transfer to open carry as a peace officer. However, this "13 days" figure will make me a little nervous the next time I'm around a young cop in NYC.
    - Karunamon 12y ago
  - Crito 12y ago
    I would put a very large amount of money on any randomly chosen civilian CCW holder outshooting any randomly chosen NYPD cop. This is partially the fault of the cop, CCW holders tend to spend more time at the range than cops, but to a certain degree it isn't: The NYPD has foolishly required all of their (normally single-action) guns have a 12lb trigger pull on all trigger pulls (http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2012/08/foghorn/nypds-choice-of-firearm-may-have-contributed-to-the-terrible-shooting/ http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2012/08/foghorn/nypds-choic...).
  - mindslight 12y ago
    NYPD gang members also purposely ride horses into pedestrians. Should we thus infer that private equestrians cause greater mayhem?
    - untog 12y ago
      No, we should talk about the topic at hand and stop trying to make nonsensical comparisons.
- UnoriginalGuy 12y ago
  Then it should be easy to refute, right? Here's the scenario: People are screaming, someone is shooting, you don't know who. You see bodies on the ground, they're bleeding. Then you see someone come around the corner holding a handgun out, they are dressed like a student, you draw your concealed carry and out of fear for your own life you shoot that person. Turns out both you and them are concealed carry. Opps. Explain why that scenario is unlikely/won't happen/can't happen. If it is "fear mongering" that should be trivial for you.
  - bitJericho 12y ago
    It's fear mongering because it hasn't happened and is incredibly unlikely to happen. At least untog up there provided some sort of actual reporting of similar events, even though it's innocent bystanders getting caught up in the shrapnel from the heros trying to protect themselves from getting shot. That's not this hollywood blockbuster scenario you two have conjured up.
    - UnoriginalGuy 12y ago
      > It's fear mongering because it hasn't happened and is incredibly unlikely to happen. Because, why? Again I see no refutement. Just empty words. Two concealed carry owners shoot each other[0]. Concealed carry almost shoots a police officer[1]. Concealed carry shoots the VICTIM in a robbery[2] during a cross-fire with the robbers. [0] http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/09/19/1239955/-Two-concealed-carry-permit-holders-shoot-and-kill-each-other-in-Michigan http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/09/19/1239955/-Two-concea... [1] http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-crestwood-concealed-carry-0730-20140730-story.html#page=1 http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-crestwood-concealed-ca... [2] http://blog.chron.com/newswatch/2012/05/man-arrested-in-family-dollar-slaying/ http://blog.chron.com/newswatch/2012/05/man-arrested-in-fami...
      - bitJericho 12y ago
        Again, none of these were actually two conceal carry shooters accidentally shooting eachother because one thought the other was the criminal. How would you like me to refute that? Shall I find an article titled "Two heros accidentally didn't shoot themselves thinking the other was the criminal." Because that's what I would need to find in order to "refute" your rediculous premise.
hga 12y ago
You know, there's more than a bit of history with this, and it's never come to pass. For example, of all the recent mass shooting events, only one didn't happen in an ironically official "No Gun Zone", the Arizona congresswoman shooting. Turns out a concealed carrier showed up just as the shooter was getting wrestled to the ground. Surprise, surprise, he didn't shoot. So you're just libeling people like me. Who you clearly know nothing about.
- opendais 12y ago
  http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2014/06/concealed_weapons_holder_accid.html http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2014/06/concealed_w... http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/09/03/us-usa-guncontrol-idaho-idUSKBN0GY2E620140903 http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/09/03/us-usa-guncontrol-... I'd say the lack of basic gun safety skill among concealed weapons holders is sufficient evidence to be concerned. This is just in the last 3-4 months with a quick google search. If I can't trust people with guns to reliably follow basic safety procedures [e.g. Both of these sound like someone had the safety off] with a weapon that can cause serious injuries why would I trust their fire discipline?
  - Crito 12y ago
    Many very popular types of guns do not have "safeties" in the sense that you are likely thinking. They do not have a switch that can be toggled between "safe" and "fire". Glocks are one prominent example (they lack some sort of safety switch, although they have other sorts of safety features.) Truly mechanically induced accidents are nevertheless exceptionally rare. The guns only fire when the trigger is pulled, which is why gun owners stress the importance of trigger discipline.
    - mitchty 12y ago
      Another note on the glock, you have to pull the trigger to pull it apart. All the more reason you follow the 4 rules of gun safety to a T with that brand. Especially the part about ensuring its not pointed anywhere it shouldn't be and unloaded check about a million times. (note, I own no firearms but have enough friends that do I gain a ton of knowledge on them.) One exception to firearms going off on their own might be a misfire after trigger pull. That means you have a possibly live round in the chamber that could go off at any time. Need to be really careful on that one.
Xeoncross 12y ago
Um, more guns is a good thing - that is why we call the police. I think you mean more "skilled"/"trained" gun operators.
- UnoriginalGuy 12y ago
  I prefer the model where nobody has guns, including the police. Maybe specialist armed units, but your average street cop shouldn't have a firearm: they aren't well trained enough. It is a proven model. It works. Plus even if you argue "people can just use knives instead," it still stops mass shootings.
  - drivingmenuts 12y ago
    That would require a massive cultural change. It works in the UK, because the UK doesn't have a history of gun ownership the way the US does. The Wild West of the UK is what, Wales? Scotland? Not a lot of guns to be found there, historically speaking. The US invented selling guns to civilians.
  - Crito 12y ago
    It's a nice idea, but absolutely impossible to implement in the US for political and practical reasons. We may as well discuss my plan to tear up all railways and replace them with canals deep enough for container ships. (Think about it; you could kayak to anywhere in the country!)
  - hga 12y ago
    Great. Then the relatively physically weak, the infirm, the elderly, the women, will be at the mercy of the strong. A short look at mass shootings in Western Europe in the lat few decades, which are both more numerous and more deadly, suggests that intermediate restrictions won't do any good at best. History prior to that tells what government can easily do to disarmed untermensch. I'll take an occasional mass shooting over everyone being at the constant mercy of thugs. For that matter, sort of echoing the others who have commented prior to my starting this comment, such an attempt in the US would instantly spark a nasty civil war killing orders of magnitude more people.
nullsocket 12y ago
At least in my state, they beat it into you in concealed carry class that you must attempt to leave the situation, not doing so and opening fire puts you in hot water. Drawing your weapon should only happen when A. you can't escape (gunman blocking the exit and there is no alternate route), or B. You can't escape and you have been or are going to be directly harmed. In the end, I'm not worried about concealed carry people, it's the people who don't care to be registered that are the issue. And as it's been said before, if someone is bent on causing an incident, a sign that says "gun-free zone" isn't going to stop them, it'll just make for a target rich environment.
- dfxm12 12y ago
  Hell, if someone is hell bent on causing an incident, they don't even need a gun. I think that is something that gets lost in these discussions.
  - hga 12y ago
    Indeed, the nation's worst mass murders by far used arson. Worst school massacre explosives. I seriously studied biology and chemistry, up to part way through MIT. If I wanted to kill a very large number of people ... I wouldn't even use anything I learned in those classes and labs, but stuff I in part picked up from the EEs I hung out with.

bitJericho 12y ago

Yep, that sounds like normal fear-mongering to me.

untog 12y ago
Not really. Even trained police officers often hurt bystanders when firing their weapons: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/26/nyregion/bystanders-shooting-wounds-caused-by-the-police.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/26/nyregion/bystanders-shooti... If a trained cop does it, I think it is legitimate to be concerned about a member of the public firing their weapon, no matter what their intent.
- hga 12y ago
  This is what happens when you extinguish a region's gun culture, as NY/NYC has done starting in 1911. You have "leaders" who both hate and don't understand guns and their use, outfit their men with poor tools (the infamous New York Trigger), and and those men's only experience with guns is very very limited training. Turns out citizens legally carrying concealed have a much better record. Given how anti-gun the MSM is, do you doubt for a second that if citizens had comitted such an atrocity it wouldn't be nationwide, probably world wide screaming headlines? Your concern is perhaps legitimate, but not after I point out the above.
  - untog 12y ago
    I'm sorry, but that's total nonsense. A much better record of what? Citizens legally carrying concealed weapons are rarely called upon to fire weapons in stressful situations with dozens of bystanders, so they only have a "better record" of doing so by virtue of having no record at all. "Gun culture" has absolutely nothing to do with trained police officers. New NYPD recruits go through 13 days of firearm training, and submit to semi-annual requalifications[1]. People with carry permits are never faced with the kind of stressful situation that an active shooter would provoke. It's utter lunacy to think that they would be able to stay calm and diffuse the situation. [1] http://home2.nyc.gov/html/nypd/html/training_nypd/firearm_tatics.shtml http://home2.nyc.gov/html/nypd/html/training_nypd/firearm_ta...
    - hga 12y ago
      Afraid the RAND institute disagrees with you WRT NYC, e.g. http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG717.html http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG717.html Look, NYC is infamous about cops handling their weapons poorly. I thought everyone who pays attention to current events knew this, but I guess I was wrong. As for your claim that we never face these stressful situations, that's flatly false. Guns are used ~ 2 million times a year to stop crimes (probably more now, those figures are some years old), and there are a number of active shooters who've been stopped by citizen concealed carriers. But you of course wouldn't know of them because the national MSM for some inexplicable reason doesn't report these incidents. If your Google Fu is up to snuff you can find them. Try including "mall" and "church" for starters
    - jessaustin 12y ago
      New NYPD recruits go through 13 days of firearm training... Is that impressive? The cops in flyover country come to the job with quite a bit more experience than that. 10-15 years of hunting, target shooting, safety training in school at multiple grade levels, and the supervision of experienced adults probably doesn't completely transfer to open carry as a peace officer. However, this "13 days" figure will make me a little nervous the next time I'm around a young cop in NYC.
  - Karunamon 12y ago
- Crito 12y ago
  I would put a very large amount of money on any randomly chosen civilian CCW holder outshooting any randomly chosen NYPD cop. This is partially the fault of the cop, CCW holders tend to spend more time at the range than cops, but to a certain degree it isn't: The NYPD has foolishly required all of their (normally single-action) guns have a 12lb trigger pull on all trigger pulls (http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2012/08/foghorn/nypds-choice-of-firearm-may-have-contributed-to-the-terrible-shooting/ http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2012/08/foghorn/nypds-choic...).
- mindslight 12y ago
  NYPD gang members also purposely ride horses into pedestrians. Should we thus infer that private equestrians cause greater mayhem?
  - untog 12y ago
    No, we should talk about the topic at hand and stop trying to make nonsensical comparisons.
UnoriginalGuy 12y ago
Then it should be easy to refute, right? Here's the scenario: People are screaming, someone is shooting, you don't know who. You see bodies on the ground, they're bleeding. Then you see someone come around the corner holding a handgun out, they are dressed like a student, you draw your concealed carry and out of fear for your own life you shoot that person. Turns out both you and them are concealed carry. Opps. Explain why that scenario is unlikely/won't happen/can't happen. If it is "fear mongering" that should be trivial for you.
- bitJericho 12y ago
  It's fear mongering because it hasn't happened and is incredibly unlikely to happen. At least untog up there provided some sort of actual reporting of similar events, even though it's innocent bystanders getting caught up in the shrapnel from the heros trying to protect themselves from getting shot. That's not this hollywood blockbuster scenario you two have conjured up.
  - UnoriginalGuy 12y ago
    > It's fear mongering because it hasn't happened and is incredibly unlikely to happen. Because, why? Again I see no refutement. Just empty words. Two concealed carry owners shoot each other[0]. Concealed carry almost shoots a police officer[1]. Concealed carry shoots the VICTIM in a robbery[2] during a cross-fire with the robbers. [0] http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/09/19/1239955/-Two-concealed-carry-permit-holders-shoot-and-kill-each-other-in-Michigan http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/09/19/1239955/-Two-concea... [1] http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-crestwood-concealed-carry-0730-20140730-story.html#page=1 http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-crestwood-concealed-ca... [2] http://blog.chron.com/newswatch/2012/05/man-arrested-in-family-dollar-slaying/ http://blog.chron.com/newswatch/2012/05/man-arrested-in-fami...
    - bitJericho 12y ago
      Again, none of these were actually two conceal carry shooters accidentally shooting eachother because one thought the other was the criminal. How would you like me to refute that? Shall I find an article titled "Two heros accidentally didn't shoot themselves thinking the other was the criminal." Because that's what I would need to find in order to "refute" your rediculous premise.

hga 12y ago

You know, there's more than a bit of history with this, and it's never come to pass. For example, of all the recent mass shooting events, only one didn't happen in an ironically official "No Gun Zone", the Arizona congresswoman shooting. Turns out a concealed carrier showed up just as the shooter was getting wrestled to the ground. Surprise, surprise, he didn't shoot. So you're just libeling people like me. Who you clearly know nothing about.

opendais 12y ago
http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2014/06/concealed_weapons_holder_accid.html http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2014/06/concealed_w... http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/09/03/us-usa-guncontrol-idaho-idUSKBN0GY2E620140903 http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/09/03/us-usa-guncontrol-... I'd say the lack of basic gun safety skill among concealed weapons holders is sufficient evidence to be concerned. This is just in the last 3-4 months with a quick google search. If I can't trust people with guns to reliably follow basic safety procedures [e.g. Both of these sound like someone had the safety off] with a weapon that can cause serious injuries why would I trust their fire discipline?
- Crito 12y ago
  Many very popular types of guns do not have "safeties" in the sense that you are likely thinking. They do not have a switch that can be toggled between "safe" and "fire". Glocks are one prominent example (they lack some sort of safety switch, although they have other sorts of safety features.) Truly mechanically induced accidents are nevertheless exceptionally rare. The guns only fire when the trigger is pulled, which is why gun owners stress the importance of trigger discipline.
  - mitchty 12y ago
    Another note on the glock, you have to pull the trigger to pull it apart. All the more reason you follow the 4 rules of gun safety to a T with that brand. Especially the part about ensuring its not pointed anywhere it shouldn't be and unloaded check about a million times. (note, I own no firearms but have enough friends that do I gain a ton of knowledge on them.) One exception to firearms going off on their own might be a misfire after trigger pull. That means you have a possibly live round in the chamber that could go off at any time. Need to be really careful on that one.

Xeoncross 12y ago

Um, more guns is a good thing - that is why we call the police. I think you mean more "skilled"/"trained" gun operators.

UnoriginalGuy 12y ago
I prefer the model where nobody has guns, including the police. Maybe specialist armed units, but your average street cop shouldn't have a firearm: they aren't well trained enough. It is a proven model. It works. Plus even if you argue "people can just use knives instead," it still stops mass shootings.
- drivingmenuts 12y ago
  That would require a massive cultural change. It works in the UK, because the UK doesn't have a history of gun ownership the way the US does. The Wild West of the UK is what, Wales? Scotland? Not a lot of guns to be found there, historically speaking. The US invented selling guns to civilians.
- Crito 12y ago
  It's a nice idea, but absolutely impossible to implement in the US for political and practical reasons. We may as well discuss my plan to tear up all railways and replace them with canals deep enough for container ships. (Think about it; you could kayak to anywhere in the country!)
- hga 12y ago
  Great. Then the relatively physically weak, the infirm, the elderly, the women, will be at the mercy of the strong. A short look at mass shootings in Western Europe in the lat few decades, which are both more numerous and more deadly, suggests that intermediate restrictions won't do any good at best. History prior to that tells what government can easily do to disarmed untermensch. I'll take an occasional mass shooting over everyone being at the constant mercy of thugs. For that matter, sort of echoing the others who have commented prior to my starting this comment, such an attempt in the US would instantly spark a nasty civil war killing orders of magnitude more people.

nullsocket 12y ago

At least in my state, they beat it into you in concealed carry class that you must attempt to leave the situation, not doing so and opening fire puts you in hot water. Drawing your weapon should only happen when A. you can't escape (gunman blocking the exit and there is no alternate route), or B. You can't escape and you have been or are going to be directly harmed. In the end, I'm not worried about concealed carry people, it's the people who don't care to be registered that are the issue. And as it's been said before, if someone is bent on causing an incident, a sign that says "gun-free zone" isn't going to stop them, it'll just make for a target rich environment.

dfxm12 12y ago
Hell, if someone is hell bent on causing an incident, they don't even need a gun. I think that is something that gets lost in these discussions.
- hga 12y ago
  Indeed, the nation's worst mass murders by far used arson. Worst school massacre explosives. I seriously studied biology and chemistry, up to part way through MIT. If I wanted to kill a very large number of people ... I wouldn't even use anything I learned in those classes and labs, but stuff I in part picked up from the EEs I hung out with.