Let's say I am the unarmed"innocent bystander"in this situation, also at risk from the bad guy. I would much prefer for you to draw and fire in this hypothetical situation. I will also fling whatever is handy...

I'm no SEAL, but having been on active duty in SD and working here now as a contractor, I've met my share. If there's one thing SEALs are good at it's TRAINING; it's what they do. Whether that training is running, swimming or shooting, they train, they train a lot. A few of them have abilities they've been honing since childhood, others only since they decided they wanted to be a SEAL. I've watched BUDS classes dwindle in numbers as the weeks go by and candidates fall out. I've watched as a group enter the Pacific for a 5 mile swim in full gear. The point being they don't run, swim or shoot as well as they do without training. Yeah, the movies make it out to be easy for these guys to do superhuman stuff, but they are just humans who train hard. There's no trick to what they do, they train.

Believe it or not there are a lot of CCW folks who train and shoot competition. They might not shoot as much as SEAL, Delta or SAS, but we don't have their ammo budget. I used to shoot a lot of .22LR with a Ruger 22/45, then at the end of the session I'd break out Colt Gov't .45 ACP and shoot a magazine. Building good form with lower cost/recoil ammo, then shoot a magazine of full power. A 17 yard shot is very doable, but a headshot is not necessarily required. First it's more difficult to hit a head and second, unless the shooter is wearing body armor, center mass is usually a better target. But that is very situational. Before attempting that though you need to train.

But that's just my opinion and I don't train enough.

Absolutely no offense meant or implied on my part. It's a highly personal topic and difficult to discuss online. Which is why I seem to have a little trouble with this thread in the first place.

I do think some of the notions expressed here are questionable. For one, there is a lot of difference between the simulated stress on a competition and the real thing. Etc. etc. It all gets pretty complicated when you have to deal with the actual, real life consequences of the infamous SHTF.

Given the situation described in the first post - man gunning down his wife and unknown male/possible friend. I kind of fail to see how an armed civilian would be able to do much good. Just as likely a split-second shooting incident turns into a prolonged shootout with more fatalities.

BTW, even if the bystanders themselves don't mind taking some friendly fire, how do you think their families and laywers are going to react? And anyway, are you the kind of person that could live with that for the rest of your life? (All rhetoric questions obviously, something we can only answer for ourselves.)

Another situation referred to here - Charlie Hebdo. Two men rush an office room with about a dozen people inside, including a LEO specifically tasked with protecting them, probably a highly trained individual. We all know how that turned out.

I'm sure there is a time and place for anything, including CCW. Then again, it *could* do more harm than good in a given situation, particularly if compounded with unrealistic expectations. Like maybe trying to rappel down a cliff with paracord.

If TS really HTF you do what you have to do. If you're a sensible person you will prepare and train accordingly, though always keeping your limitations in mind. I still believe it's best to be honest and realistic about it and I don't think an online forum such as ETS is the best place to discuss self-defense. So many people talking the talk on survivalist and combatives websites already it's not even funny.

Now, I don't mean to put anybody down. Please take this for what it's worth, one guy's experience and 2 cents. So peace to all and a good day...

Why do you think that would be the required response, or even a preferable response? You see that in movies, not so much in real life.

I imagine this is what untrained and knowledge lacking people associate with a typical response, because that's what they see on their TV. They are uninformed, and wrong. Besides, those head shots are usually taken from more like 50 yards out, weak handed, instinctively aimed (no sights), while riding on a horse going in the opposite direction. The impact of the shot usually throws the bad guy back through the air 30 feet, bursting through a one inch thick plate glass window that suddenly appeared out of nowhere. Then he explodes. Then the good guy proceeds to make 34 more of those same awesome shots, using a handgun he never reloads. That makes slide racking and brass ejecting sounds, even though it is a revolver. Then he pulls out his knife for more carnage, which obligingly goes "zzziiinnnggg!", apparently because he simply touched it.

Unfortunately, people believe, and base their opinions on stuff like this.

It's not clear to me where this opinion of yours comes from, but having trained under stress and having had to draw my pistol in public twice, I'm here to tell you that I don't agree.



Without knowing the specifics of this incident (which nobody on this thread has offered to date) you really do not know. If there was even a second and a half between recognizance of the threat (viewing the weapon being drawn or hearing the first shot) and one or both of the victims being shot, it's quite possible that a civilian concealed carrier would have been able to save one or both victims.



As I've said before in this thread, that's not what actually happens in the USA, in the vast majority of the time that a civilian concealed carrier intervenes in a violent assault. Almost invariably when a civilian concealed carrier intervenes, lives are saved.

I'm basing my opinions on training and statistics. Where are yours coming from?



Where did you get "highly trained individual" from? Have you ever gone shooting with cops? Gone to classes with them?

One of the unfortunate consequences of wearing a uniform is that bad guys will frequently target police officers first.

Frankly, we're talking ourselves in circles here. You've made up your mind based on whatever you've made it up on. I'll continue to carry, and train, and study the subject. You do what feels right to you.

What if that armed citizen happened to be the intended victim? He would have been right there in the middle of things as they went down, and there may have been a possibility that he could have responded. You seem to be thinking of uninvolved citizens rolling in to the rescue in the middle of an event. That is NOT what I train for. That is a job for the police. I hate to inform you, but if I were to see someone attacking you from 50 feet away, I most certainly would NOT draw my firearm and attempt a head shot on the bad guy to save you. That seems to be a fantasy held by non-gun people of how gun people would react. At the point of your attack, my priorities would be to protect my family, myself, my friends, other bystanders, and then you in very last place. Chances are high I would not get around to the "protect you" part. That sounds harsh. But you are not my priority. I am not in law enforcement and I do not train to actively insert myself into a violent situation. I train to get my family and myself OUT of a violent situation. You only get to ride along on my coattails on the way out if doing so doesn't involve putting my family and myself in additional danger. Once my family was totally out of danger, then and only then would I consider other things I could do to permanently put an end to the violent situation (and no, that wouldn't include any headshot attempts from 50 feet away).


It would be hard to live with, yes. But it would be harder for me to live with having cowered in place, totally submissive to the bad guys, simply watching my family, friends, and bystanders being murdered.


So, if you cannot guarantee that you will win each and every time, that means you shouldn't even try. Is that what you are saying?

Allusions have been made to analyses of actual shooting incidents involving CCW intervention. I place high value on such (reasonably unbiased)studies. Any references?

Is it even known if the LEO in the room at Charlie's was armed? The LEO's out on the street were unarmed, why would a LEO inside a room in a private security role be armed if the regular LEO was not. I don't know for certain, but my thought is that the LEO was essentially a bouncer with a uniform and badge, which was enough to get him shot first.

Active shooters are stopped by armed civilians in 3% of cases, according to the most recent FBI study. Unarmed civilians stop the active shooter in 13% of cases. (http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2014/sep...n-2000-and-2013).

NYPD's research concludes that shooting an assailant is the most effective countermeasure in stopping an active shooter (Active Shooter: Recommendations and Analysis for Risk Mitigation, NYPD, 2012; http://www.nypdshield.org/public/SiteFiles/documents/Activeshooter.pdf)

A Purdue professor's research shows that all but two active shooter events since the 1950's occurred somewhere that concealed carry was illegal (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/04/...uns-in-schools/). Only one active shooter incident in recent years occurred somewhere that concealed carry was legal (Rep. Giffords) (and in this case, a concealed carrier came upon the scene immediately after the shooter was subdued by unarmed bystanders).

Deaths and injuries from mass public shootings fall dramatically after right-to-carry legislation is passed. Multiple-victim shootings decrease in states that have concealed carry (Multiple Victim Public Shootings, Bombings, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handgun Laws: Contrasting Private and Public Law Enforcement, Lott John R., Landes William M.; University of Chicago – covers years 1977 to 1995).

Lots of emotion out here. I would appreciate it if we could keep this civil.

The headshot at 50ft idea was brought up earlier on and it caught my attention, hence my comment:



Do I think it's a realistic proposition? Not so much.