Orlando mass shooting

[revmic]

Data for what? The first part is a self-evident logical conclusion, the second is a humble opinion.
Concealed carry applies to public areas, or 'on the street'. Unless you claim that a concealed carrier wants to be prepared for an impromptu target shoot where he must conceal his weapon to be a surprise contender (slight strawman, but not by much), the intent of a concealed handgun is to publicly open fire on someone. Or just wave it around, actually worse. Judge, jury, and executioner on a split seconds notice. Is there another reason to carry a concealed firearm? Serious question

Have you undertaken any training or serious study of CCW?  It doesn't sound like your conclusions and your opinion aren't very well informed.  The goal of CCW is to survive a life threatening situation.  It isn't just a matter of strapping up like some Barney Badass.  Knowing the laws and other factors, such as situational awareness and threat avoidance are critical components.  For instance, just waving a concealed firearm around is itself a crime (Brandishing) in my locale and others and can be extended to a more serious offense such as Menacing, or Assault With a Deadly Weapon, depending on circumstances.

I'm a practitioner myself...although not daily, since I work in a Federal facility...and I will be quite content to never have a need to deploy my firearm.  Ever.  But my overriding goal is for myself and/or others to not be injured or killed if I can help it.

And yes, I also have AR-15s: one off-the-shelf model chambered in 5.56 mm and one I built, in .300 Blackout.  Their primary use is recreational shooting, with utility as home defense rifles...even if it's against a bear that doesn't mind his manners like most of our ursine visitors do.  Magazine capacity?  What one actually needs is always determined after the fact.  I want more left in the magazine after an encounter than I needed.  It beats the heck out of having one less.

Have I undertaken 'serious study? Gonna go with 'no' on that one.
The goal is to 'survive a life threatening situation'? Would that be by throwing the firearm? Hiding behind it? Don't mince. My comment was that concealed carriers are actually preparing for a public shootout, are you honestly suggesting that a carrier of a concealed weapon is...not prepared for shooting in a public area? You're being dishonest if you are suggesting the intent of carrying a weapon is threat avoidance; a handgun is for threat confrontation. Self defense is everyone's right, but if you are carrying, you damn well better be prepared for a firefight on the street. Since you are well informed after your serious study, please explain to me a little more clearly precisely how wrong I am in asserting that a concealed weapon carrier is preparing for a firefight on the street. I'm not sure I understood that part.

[revmic]

Data for what? The first part is a self-evident logical conclusion, the second is a humble opinion.
Concealed carry applies to public areas, or 'on the street'. Unless you claim that a concealed carrier wants to be prepared for an impromptu target shoot where he must conceal his weapon to be a surprise contender (slight strawman, but not by much), the intent of a concealed handgun is to publicly open fire on someone. Or just wave it around, actually worse. Judge, jury, and executioner on a split seconds notice. Is there another reason to carry a concealed firearm? Serious question

Actually, I know several people that only use their permit exclusively for transport of weapons to and from the range - the definition of "concealed" can be counterintuitive and it avoids risk of legal trouble. The intent of a concealed carry is to stop a felonious assault.

I think for most security guards their job is just a job, one in which a license to carry results in a slightly better pay rate.

You need a conceal permit to transport in your state? That's news to me, and if that's the case I stand corrected, that is clearly a non-confrontational use. My state is rough but requires no permit if gun is cased and ammo locked separately.
 
'Stop a felonious assault?' How, besides firing? No euphemisms, VQ, the intent is to shoot. That's what firearms are built to do. I do not suggest it is in any way wrong to take your safety in your own hands. My point is that concealed carrying (the transport you mention aside) shows a willingness and preparedness to engage in a shootout on the street (or at least should). It does not confer any responsibility or morality on the carrier's qualifications.

Fair point about security guards, I concede it. Was thinking of a few I know locally, and the Zimmenrmans out there, doesn't apply here.

[PetersCreek]

Have I undertaken 'serious study? Gonna go with 'no' on that one.
The goal is to 'survive a life threatening situation'? Would that be by throwing the firearm? Hiding behind it? Don't mince.

I'm not mincing.  I'm describing my philosophy on armed self defense...one that is not uncommon.  Yes, discharging the firearm may be unavoidable in a sizable subset of situations but that is not the only interim step toward the ultimate goal of surviving the encounter.  If I can disengage or de-escalate the situation by some other means: success.  If while I'm drawing my weapon, the assailant has a sudden change of heart: success.  If both I and the assailant survive the encounter: success. 

You're being dishonest if you are suggesting the intent of carrying a weapon is threat avoidance; a handgun is for threat confrontation.

What I actually said is, threat avoidance is a factor in armed self defense and a critical one, at that.  There's far more to it of course, but to oversimplify, if I'm going somewhere I think I'll likely have to use my CCW firearm...I don't go there. 

please explain to me a little more clearly precisely how wrong I am in asserting that a concealed weapon carrier is preparing for a firefight on the street. I'm not sure I understood that part.

If you'll use less loaded language, I will agree that I have prepared for an armed self defense encounter if you'll agree that the "firefight" isn't the end-all and be-all of my preparations.

[Ranb]

Data for what? ....Is there another reason to carry a concealed firearm? Serious question

I interpreted it as looking for a shootout, sorry about that.  The people I know who carry concealed do so to be prepared.  I only know of one of them who actually took their pistol out of the holster in response to a threat.  He did this to confront a man who was trying to get himself killed by snatching a rifle off of a shooting bench at a rifle range and waving it around.  After he was disarmed I helped hold the guy down until the police/EMT's took him away cuffed to a gurney.  This is the CCW I'm used to seeing; not exactly the wild west or macho wannabes spoiling for a fight.

I used to carry but never got comfortable with it so my WA CPL is used as proof of a bkgd check (useless after I-594 passed) and to transport a handgun in a car without keeping it locked up.

So when you say that we should focus on 'preventing access by violent people' you mean we should....do absolutely nothing? Another serious question

I'm not sure how this would be done.

Final serious question: what spread and at what yardage can you hold with that Contender in your photobucket, assuming still wind?

I can generally shoot about 2 MOA with the stocked (carbines, SBR's) contenders and about 4 MOA (from a rest) with those rigged up as a handgun.  MOA is minutes of angle; about 1 inch group for each 100 yards distance.

[Ranb]

Why don't you ask the Las Vegas cop at the Donald Trump rally when Michael Sandford tried to steal his gun to shoot Trump?

I don't think I need to ask.  I'm confident that most police officers would prefer to issued a reliable personalized handgun.  But I've yet to hear of any police officer who is willing to use what is available now.  I read comments by the Seattle police chief saying that smart gun tech is not good enough for the police. 

http://www.sfgate.com/business/article/Smart-gun-industry-may-have-found-its-test-bed-6850142.php  The San Francisco police don't think smart gun tech is ready either. 

San Francisco Police Chief Greg Suhr on Tuesday offered his department as a test bed for smart guns once the technology is more fully developed.

 

If it became generally known that cops had either holster locks or a "smart" gun that kept it from being fired by anybody else, the incentive to steal a cop's gun would go away.

Holster locks are miles away from a real personalized gun.  The lock is just something that keeps the handgun more secure in the holster so it doesn't fall out.  Anyone familiar with the lock will be able to draw the gun.

Ranb 

[revmic]

Have I undertaken 'serious study? Gonna go with 'no' on that one.
The goal is to 'survive a life threatening situation'? Would that be by throwing the firearm? Hiding behind it? Don't mince.

I'm not mincing.  I'm describing my philosophy on armed self defense...one that is not uncommon.  Yes, discharging the firearm may be unavoidable in a sizable subset of situations but that is not the only interim step toward the ultimate goal of surviving the encounter.  If I can disengage or de-escalate the situation by some other means: success.  If while I'm drawing my weapon, the assailant has a sudden change of heart: success.  If both I and the assailant survive the encounter: success. 

You're being dishonest if you are suggesting the intent of carrying a weapon is threat avoidance; a handgun is for threat confrontation.

What I actually said is, threat avoidance is a factor in armed self defense and a critical one, at that.  There's far more to it of course, but to oversimplify, if I'm going somewhere I think I'll likely have to use my CCW firearm...I don't go there. 

please explain to me a little more clearly precisely how wrong I am in asserting that a concealed weapon carrier is preparing for a firefight on the street. I'm not sure I understood that part.

If you'll use less loaded language, I will agree that I have prepared for an armed self defense encounter if you'll agree that the "firefight" isn't the end-all and be-all of my preparations.

Your last point first: I absolutely did not suggest that the sole reason for concealed carry is to engage in a shootout. You, me, and everyone else can defend themselves however they deem appropriate, preferably complying with applicable law. I do suggest that we drop the euphamisms like 'prepared for an armed encounter'. Icing on cupcakes has less sugar than that.

Philosophies of self-defence were not the topic, so you lost me a little with the 'doesn't sound like your conclusions and your opinions aren't very well informed (sic)' jazz. Some would call that loaded language. That you kicked off with. Maybe address that before calling me to the carpet?

[revmic]

Data for what? ....Is there another reason to carry a concealed firearm? Serious question

I interpreted it as looking for a shootout, sorry about that.  The people I know who carry concealed do so to be prepared.

Yeah, maybe shouldve worded differently, made sense to me when typing but can see how it could sound that way. But saying 'being prepared' is exactly what I meant: prepared for what? Prepared to open fire in an uncontrolled situation where they have elected themselves judge, jury and possibly executioner.

So when you say that we should focus on 'preventing access by violent people' you mean we should....do absolutely nothing? Another serious question

I'm not sure how this would be done.
[/quote]

Full circle to the thread discussion. Did you see that article earlier from the Guardian that  mako88sb put up, reply #52? It's time to take steps to so something, even if it gives responsible owners a migraine, and even if the steps don't work perfectly.

Was asking about the Contender .22lr scoped and silenced earlier. No experience with silencers, but assumed that there would be an uncontrolled change in air pressure inside the baffled area that would interfere with trajectory. That's not an issue?

[PetersCreek]

Your last point first: I absolutely did not suggest that the sole reason for concealed carry is to engage in a shootout.

My mistake, then.  You seemed rather focused on the "shootout in the street" idea so I guess I focused on it, too...and too much.

I do suggest that we drop the euphamisms like 'prepared for an armed encounter'. Icing on cupcakes has less sugar than that.

Sure, it's a bit clinical but it's also more encompassing of possible situations and outcomes than is the term "firefight" and that was my intent.  I suppose we could opt for a term commonly used in the literature: Defensive Gun Use or DGU. 

Philosophies of self-defence were not the topic, so you lost me a little with the 'doesn't sound like your conclusions and your opinions aren't very well informed (sic)' jazz. Some would call that loaded language. That you kicked off with. Maybe address that before calling me to the carpet?

I don't think one can so neatly separate preparation from the philosophy one uses in approaching it.  I can't, anyway.  My impression of how well informed your opinions are was colored by what I saw as hyperbole in your posts and if I'm not mistaken, it was bolstered by your admission that you've undertaken no serious study of the subject.

[revmic]

Your last point first: I absolutely did not suggest that the sole reason for concealed carry is to engage in a shootout.

My mistake, then.  You seemed rather focused on the "shootout in the street" idea so I guess I focused on it, too...and too much.

I do suggest that we drop the euphamisms like 'prepared for an armed encounter'. Icing on cupcakes has less sugar than that.

Sure, it's a bit clinical but it's also more encompassing of possible situations and outcomes than is the term "firefight" and that was my intent.  I suppose we could opt for a term commonly used in the literature: Defensive Gun Use or DGU. 

Philosophies of self-defence were not the topic, so you lost me a little with the 'doesn't sound like your conclusions and your opinions aren't very well informed (sic)' jazz. Some would call that loaded language. That you kicked off with. Maybe address that before calling me to the carpet?

I don't think one can so neatly separate preparation from the philosophy one uses in approaching it.  I can't, anyway.  My impression of how well informed your opinions are was colored by what I saw as hyperbole in your posts and if I'm not mistaken, it was bolstered by your admission that you've undertaken no serious study of the subject.

Well put and I concede to hyperbole causing ambiguity.

Rather than DGU or other clinical terminology, can we agree call it shooting people? Defensive Gun Use is another euphamism, as firing at someone is not defensive- it's a counterattack (please note I am resisting the urge to hyperbolicly ask if you expect your bullet to defensively deflect the attacker's shot) No issue with that per se, I am an advocate of violence as a problem solving measure and am comfortable calling a spade a spade.

Regarding philosophies of self-defense, I have not studied it but am I correct in reasoning these broad generalities?

1. Establish order of expendability, both in general beforehand and situationally.
2. Take whatever neutralizing action, starting with the least destructive, that is at your disposal to preserve your life and well-being while inflicting as little damage as possible to others, in order of their expendablity.

[VQ]

You need a conceal permit to transport in your state? That's news to me, and if that's the case I stand corrected, that is clearly a non-confrontational use. My state is rough but requires no permit if gun is cased and ammo locked separately.
 
'Stop a felonious assault?' How, besides firing? No euphemisms, VQ, the intent is to shoot. That's what firearms are built to do. I do not suggest it is in any way wrong to take your safety in your own hands. My point is that concealed carrying (the transport you mention aside) shows a willingness and preparedness to engage in a shootout on the street (or at least should). It does not confer any responsibility or morality on the carrier's qualifications.

No, a CCW is not needed to transport a firearm in any state, to my knowledge. It simplifies transport of a handgun by reducing the number of ways in which a shooter can unintentionally violate the law.

The intent is self-defense. Stopping an assault is not a euphemism - that is the goal of concealed carry. Killing a person by shooting them (while something a carrier of a concealed weapon is implicitly willing to do) is not the only possible outcome of drawing, nor is it the preferred outcome.

Regarding philosophies of self-defense, I have not studied it but am I correct in reasoning these broad generalities?

1. Establish order of expendability, both in general beforehand and situationally.
2. Take whatever neutralizing action, starting with the least destructive, that is at your disposal to preserve your life and well-being while inflicting as little damage as possible to others, in order of their expendablity.

Honest question - you don't feel like you are resorting to euphemisms here?

[PetersCreek]

Rather than DGU or other clinical terminology, can we agree call it shooting people? Defensive Gun Use is another euphamism, as firing at someone is not defensive- it's a counterattack (please note I am resisting the urge to hyperbolicly ask if you expect your bullet to defensively deflect the attacker's shot) No issue with that per se, I am an advocate of violence as a problem solving measure and am comfortable calling a spade a spade.

No, I'm quite comfortable sticking with DGU since it is more accurate than your suggestion.  "Shooting people" is a subset of successful DGUs.  "Defensive shooting" and "counterattack" are not mutually exclusive terms, however, the latter encompasses both non-lethal and lethal use of force.  The former is a commonly used term in the literature when referring to DGUs during which the weapon is fired, so I will continue to use it.

Regarding philosophies of self-defense, I have not studied it but am I correct in reasoning these broad generalities?

1. Establish order of expendability, both in general beforehand and situationally.
2. Take whatever neutralizing action, starting with the least destructive, that is at your disposal to preserve your life and well-being while inflicting as little damage as possible to others, in order of their expendablity.

No, "expendability" is not a consideration and things often happen far to fast for such a thought intensive process.  The nutshell version is more like, (1) identify and access the threat and (2) respond with the appropriate level of force.  If it's a non-lethal threat, respond with The degree of non-lethal force necessary to stop the attack.  If it's a threat that puts you in reasonable fear of grave bodily injury or death, respond with lethal force.  In either case, if retreat offers the better chance of going home, go home.

Now before I hear the "judge, jury, and executioner" comment again, responding with lethal force does not mean the goal is to "shoot to kill".  The goal is to stop the attack.  Now.  Definitively.  While it's true that putting rounds on the center of observable mass has a high chance of being lethal, death is not strictly required so long as the attack is stopped.  In other words, if the assailant reconsiders his life choices after taking one round to the chest that doesn't kill him...well...as I wrote earlier: success.  If I choose to keep shooting after that, I am no longer defending myself.

[revmic]

No, a CCW is not needed to transport a firearm in any state, to my knowledge. It simplifies transport of a handgun by reducing the number of ways in which a shooter can unintentionally violate the law.

So the concealed carry is used as an assurance of compliance in case of technical transporting infractions? OK, that makes sense.

The intent is self-defense. Stopping an assault is not a euphemism - that is the goal of concealed carry. Killing a person by shooting them (while something a carrier of a concealed weapon is implicitly willing to do) is not the only possible outcome of drawing, nor is it the preferred outcome.

I disagree that self defense is the object, on the grounds that attacking and counterattacking are not defensive, but your directness is appreciated.

Honest question - you don't feel like you are resorting to euphemisms here?

If you mean expendability, maybe poor word choice. I'm trying to think in terms of 'philosophy of self-defense', and it seems that you would have to determine in advance who is most important to defend and the collateral damage you can accept. Priority of those involved, like if I am with my family, their safety comes before mine. Do you shoot through bystanders in order to take out a mass shooter who is actively firing? Also thinking of LunarOrbits earlier question about the decision to use nuclear weapons, the expendability/priority of the combatants and civilians had to be weighed. Tough to find the right words

[VQ]

I disagree that self defense is the object, on the grounds that attacking and counterattacking are not defensive, but your directness is appreciated.

"Self-defense" is a term with existing definitions; the relevant one per Wiktionary is "The right to protect oneself against violence by using reasonable force, can be used as justification in several charges including murder, assault, and battery." English isn't a language of logical constructions; whether shooting in self defense is itself an act of defense is irrelevant to the definition.

[VQ]

If you mean expendability, maybe poor word choice. I'm trying to think in terms of 'philosophy of self-defense', and it seems that you would have to determine in advance who is most important to defend and the collateral damage you can accept. Priority of those involved, like if I am with my family, their safety comes before mine. Do you shoot through bystanders in order to take out a mass shooter who is actively firing? Also thinking of LunarOrbits earlier question about the decision to use nuclear weapons, the expendability/priority of the combatants and civilians had to be weighed. Tough to find the right words

Not really any more than I plan in advance where I'll steer if my father, brother, and son all jump into the road on the front and each side of my car while driving. I think your imagination doesn't really match up with reality here.

[revmic]

I disagree that self defense is the object, on the grounds that attacking and counterattacking are not defensive, but your directness is appreciated.

"Self-defense" is a term with existing definitions; the relevant one per Wiktionary is "The right to protect oneself against violence by using reasonable force, can be used as justification in several charges including murder, assault, and battery." English isn't a language of logical constructions; whether shooting in self defense is itself an act of defense is irrelevant to the definition.

True, but context is a factor you are ignoring. The context of this thread is not self defense generally, it is specifically about the use of a firearm. A gun is an 'equalizer' as they say, which means your defensive action is roughly equal to the attacking force, so more appropriately a counterattack. If you are hung up on definitions, note that the definition you cite says refers to the 'right', in the context of a legal justification. I am talking about the specific action.

Not really any more than I plan in advance where I'll steer if my father, brother, and son all jump into the road on the front and each side of my car while driving. I think your imagination doesn't really match up with reality here.

Not a valid comparison. I am talking about generally assessing what you are willing to do, and to who, and under what circumstances, before being faced with a specific threat. Contemplating realistically how prepared you are to commit to violence. The time to think about that is before the situation comes up, unlike your example with the car (no brainer btw, son lives). Are you seriously saying you don't do that? You'll just wing it? Please sell your guns if so.