Armed citizens USELESS against terrorists

[Glenn E. Meyer]

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/paris-terror-attack-simulation-conducted-in-texas-by-gun-group/

Out of TX, yet. Anybody know these folks. I am tempted to type bad words now.

Glenn

[Mr_White]

Regardless of the poor chance that some generic, hypothetical concealed carrier (or anyone) may have against multiple rifle-armed attackers, I very strongly believe that the only correct personal policy is "Who dares, wins." I don't believe for a second that it's a foregone conclusion.

[Tamara]

Out of TX, yet. Anybody know these folks.

Yes.

I am Jack's complete lack of surprise.

[GardoneVT]

Had the TTAG sim shown the terrorists dying, thered be no headline.

As to the situation, frankly, as a hostage you're already dead the moment the terrorists walk in.The question then becomes how do you plan to meet the boatman-alone, or with one or more of the bad guys as company?Heck, you might even take them down and walk out alive.

[Totem Polar]

Yes.

I am Jack's complete lack of surprise.
I'll go with the Tam opinion.

Also, in Texas, shouldn't the sim have been 3-4 CCWers (with BBQ rigs) against the riflemen? :D

[HCM]

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/paris-terror-attack-simulation-conducted-in-texas-by-gun-group/

Out of TX, yet. Anybody know these folks. I am tempted to type bad words now.

Glenn

Glenn,

TTAG- as in the website.

Nick Leghorn is one of their regular contributors and purports to reside in our fair city. He is also a one-man case study in Dunning-Kreuger and firearms.

For myself, I would rather die well then die cowering in a cubicle.

[TR675]

Also, in Texas, shouldn't the sim have been 3-4 CCWers (with BBQ rigs) against the riflemen? :D

Nah. Lots of people have a license but nobody really carries down here. If they do, it's "in the car."

So CCW'ers do poorly against multiple attackers when they are outnumbered, outgunned, and have an initiative deficit? What other result should we reasonably expect?

[texasaggie2005]

Nah. Lots of people have a license but nobody really carries down here. If they do, it's "in the car."

Agreed. I saw a statistic a while back that stated only 10% of Texas CHL holders actually carry regularly. Of all my friends who I know have their CHL, about 50% can be expected to have a gun on them at any given time.

[Kyle Reese]

Agreed. I saw a statistic a while back that stated only 10% of Texas CHL holders actually carry regularly. Of all my friends who I know have their CHL, about 50% can be expected to have a gun on them at any given time.

What's their rationale?

[TR675]

My friends are the same way. I think the bottom line is that carrying a gun everywhere requires a fairly significant lifestyle alteration - different clothes, habits, places that are off-limits, etc. - that most folks aren't willing to make. Which is a reasonable decision for them.

[Edwin]

I'm with Tam. This is a big old "Duh".

It's an ambush damn it. You're supposed to break contact and get out of the kill zone quickly.

[texasaggie2005]

What's their rationale?

"I live in low crime area."

"I work in a nice building with security."

"I live in the country, there is no serious crime here."

etc, etc, etc


Honestly, a lot of my friends and family live in relatively low-crime, rural or suburban areas and work in the nicer parts of Houston suburbia. Off the top of my head, I cannot think of a single friend or family member that has been a victim of a crime or even been a neighbor to a crime victim.

Heck, I myself have been the only one. I walked up on a guy trying to steal my truck out of a hospital parking lot in the middle of the day. I was carrying, but I had my then 3yr old daughter with me. My presence scared the guy off, but I wasn't about to intervene with my daughter with me. I got his license plate and he was arrested the next day. But that's pretty much the extent of crime I've experienced, other than a burglarized truck one night.

[JAD]

Regardless of the poor chance that some generic, hypothetical concealed carrier (or anyone) may have against multiple rifle-armed attackers, I very strongly believe that the only correct personal policy is "Who dares, wins." I don't believe for a second that it's a foregone conclusion.

"It is true that a victim who fights back may suffer for it, but one who does not almost certainly will suffer for it."
-- JDC, pbuh

[GardoneVT]

My friends are the same way. I think the bottom line is that carrying a gun everywhere requires a fairly significant lifestyle alteration - different clothes, habits, places that are off-limits, etc. - that most folks aren't willing to make. Which is a reasonable decision for them.

Adam Winkler's book contains a stat which suggests only 10% of a states residents bother to carry consistently.Many more hold a CCW permit for administrative reasons, as that means they can transport a gun without needing to lock it in the trunk. One of my professors was profoundly anti, but held a permit because his wife carried and it meant he'd avoid legal issues if he drove her car.

Then we come to the deplorable state of typical handgun skills. Im considered a handgun savant locally for shooting beyond 10 yards offhand-says it all, really. Even if there were armed citizens present at an attack scene,it's going to be two guys with Taurus Judge's or R51s stuffed with RIP ammo.

[Trooper224]

As for Texas itself, the low percentage of carry doesn't surprise me a bit. We have friends in Huston and family in Dallas, so we get down there on a regular basis. The image most have of the state is obsolete. With it's massive influx of immigrants and out of stater's over the last decade, Texas is becoming more and more like California all the time.

[Matt O]

Agreed. I saw a statistic a while back that stated only 10% of Texas CHL holders actually carry regularly. Of all my friends who I know have their CHL, about 50% can be expected to have a gun on them at any given time.

I doubt this is the case for most people in Texas, but I don't carry the majority of time I'm awake simply because it's illegal where I work and spend most of my time during the day. When I'm at home at night and on weekends then yeah, I'm definitely carrying.

[texasaggie2005]

I doubt this is the case for most people in Texas, but I don't carry the majority of time I'm awake simply because it's illegal where I work and spend most of my time during the day. When I'm at home at night and on weekends then yeah, I'm definitely carrying.

Yeah, I understand that predicament. We are fortunate that storing your carry gun in your car in your employer's parking lot is legal, with exception to some of the petro plants which can legally restrict it.

[JodyH]

TTAG is no friend of responsible gun owners. They are the epitome of "that guy".

[Chuck Haggard]

That this scenario shows the "terrorists" without at least proper eye pro going into a Sim scenario is telling.

TTAG is one of the very worst internet gun sites on the planet. It is so full of derp and retardery I don't even know where to begin.

This looks like a repeat of that scenario they did for the news a few years ago to "prove" that CCW folks would be worthless against an active-shooter. I have to wonder what the agenda is for the folks doing this.

That the history of real world active shooters and terrorist events has shown that armed good guys almost always make a significant difference should be a clue.

Pretty sure that IDPA vest wearing dude with the Glock in the mall in Nairobi is unimpressed with this bullshit.

[Terence]

Is there significant difference between a terrorist going into action thinking there MIGHT be someone there armed, and KNOWING there is someone there armed. At least, I'm curious to know if you SMEs think that's an important distinction.

[LSP972]

I think the bottom line is that carrying a gun everywhere requires a fairly significant lifestyle alteration - different clothes, habits, places that are off-limits, etc. - that most folks aren't willing to make.

This... EXACTLY this. Same situation next door in Louisiana.

The "gun guys & gals"? You bet... they're packing. But John Smith, Melissa Jones, Mortimer Boudreaux, etc.? Too much trouble, hassle, etc.

Its the same sort of mind-set as the cop who is flabbergasted that you even SUGGEST he invest some of HIS time or money on training, gear, etc. IOW, they are not wired for survival.

.

[JodyH]

All their demonstration proved is that when you drop Suzy Soccermom and her Dodge minivan into the final laps of the Indy 500 she's not going to do so hot.

[Malamute]

...That the history of real world active shooters and terrorist events has shown that armed good guys almost always make a significant difference should be a clue.

Pretty sure that IDPA vest wearing dude with the Glock in the mall in Nairobi is unimpressed with this bullshit.

There were several guys at Westgate Mall that seemed unimpressed with that bullshit. One reportedly exchanged shots with on the the terrs (What!!! Unpossible for someone armed with a pistol to survive exchanging shots with someone with AK!!!).

Watching vid of the Westgate terrs, they looked like retards as far as basic firearms experience goes. They murdered a bunch of unarmed people, but were bottled up in the grovery store by a couple guys with pistols. They may not have wanted to leave, but after figuring out they would get shot at if they tried, they never really tried after that that I can tell.

[GardoneVT]

Considering France doesnt have CCW as practiced here, wouldnt any "simulation" based on that circumstance be totally invalid here in The Land of the Free ?

I'm no terrorist , but its poor planning to execute the same plan for Texas one used in France.
Atop that, there are multiple cases of mass shootings interdicted by armed bystanders in real life.

But TTAG is a business-and their customer base is the Cleetii of America.

[Irelander]

"I live in low crime area."

"I work in a nice building with security."

"I live in the country, there is no serious crime here."

etc, etc, etc


That sounds familiar. Every time my buddies are telling me about their new "carry gun" I say "cool, let me check it out". They always say "oh, I don't have it on me...I'll have to go get it from the safe." I always wonder why they have a carry permit in the first place since they never carry.

TTAG is BS.

[Kyle Reese]

That sounds familiar. Every time my buddies are telling me about their new "carry gun" I say "cool, let me check it out". They always say "oh, I don't have it on me...I'll have to go get it from the safe." I always wonder why they have a carry permit in the first place since they never carry.

TTAG is BS.

More like TTADK (The Truth About Dunning-Kruger).

[texasaggie2005]

Every time my buddies are telling me about their new "carry gun" I say "cool, let me check it out".

I'm hesitant to go into what brand & model of guns the majority of them carry. Let's just say Taurus is heavily represented. And I'm the "crazy" one who carries a G19.

[45dotACP]

Reminds me of that one FOF scenario 60 minutes did about school shooters. You know, with the students that were wearing clothes that screamed "I'm obviously armed", not trained, and placed in the same spot every time and sent against an experienced cop who knew exactly who to shoot first...these sims are not representative of reality in any way, shape, or form.

[Wheeler]

That this scenario shows the "terrorists" without at least proper eye pro going into a Sim scenario is telling.

TTAG is one of the very worst internet gun sites on the planet. It is so full of derp and retardery I don't even know where to begin.

This looks like a repeat of that scenario they did for the news a few years ago to "prove" that CCW folks would be worthless against an active-shooter. I have to wonder what the agenda is for the folks doing this.

That the history of real world active shooters and terrorist events has shown that armed good guys almost always make a significant difference should be a clue.

Pretty sure that IDPA vest wearing dude with the Glock in the mall in Nairobi is unimpressed with this bullshit.

Let's not forget this guy either...


One member of the congregation, Charl van Wyk, who wrote a book about the event (Shooting Back), returned fire with a .38 special revolver, wounding one of the attackers. At this point they fled the church. Mkhumbuzi had been ordered to throw four petrol bombs into the church following the shooting, but abandoned this intention as all four fled in the vehicle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_James_Church_massacre

[Chuck Haggard]

It's a good thing Alvin York didn't "know" that you couldn't use a handgun effectively to fight multiple attacking adversaries armed with long guns.

[Malamute]

It's a good thing Alvin York didn't "know" that you couldn't use a handgun effectively to fight multiple attacking adversaries armed with long guns.

One thing from Coopers Commentaries years ago stuck in my mind, from Vol 5, No5,


Remember the axiom that you are only "outgunned" if you miss. Only the old-timers among us remember the deserved adulation heaped upon Butch O'Hare, after whom the Chicago airport is now named. In his magnificent exploit he was the only Navy fighter plane available in the air when nine Japanese Betty's were observed in attack formation heading for the Lexington battle group. These Betty's were twin-engined medium bombers with rifle caliber machineguns forward and sideward, plus a 20mm automatic cannon as a tail stinger. The Nip formation was a V of V's flying very close together and protecting each other with their own guns. O'Hare was flying an F4F-3 armed with four 50-caliber Brownings and packing 200 rounds per gun. In plain sight he tore into that Jap formation and destroyed five bombers before he ran out of ammunition and the fight broke up.

Let our current handwringing journalists observe that he was not "outgunned."

[Suvorov]

Anything that gets inside their decision process and makes them have to react is going to be better than nothing (see - I did it without using one of gundome's most over used acronyms).

It continues to boggle my mind just how many people don't get this simple concept.

[KevinB]

At the very least you can spend your last moments doing something...

[secondstoryguy]

At the very least you can spend your last moments doing something...

+1...and not go out like a sheep at the slaughterhouse.

Packing heat just gives you options in situations that would otherwise be hopeless....some situations are no win.

[okie john]

In keeping with being a derp generator of astonishing vitality, TTAG had the wrong focus.

An armed citizen might probably will not defeat terrorists armed with rifles. But he or she might disrupt things long enough to get help on the way, to make someone else's response more effective, or to force the attackers to change their plans. Any of those could save lives, even though it might not save the armed citizen's life.

Either way, you have to try.


Okie John

[Tamara]

I ain't goin' out like that.

[ranger]

That sounds familiar. Every time my buddies are telling me about their new "carry gun" I say "cool, let me check it out". They always say "oh, I don't have it on me...I'll have to go get it from the safe." I always wonder why they have a carry permit in the first place since they never carry.

TTAG is BS.

Same here in GA - I know lots of CCW holders but very few who truly carry. Many get the CCW to facilitate buying guns versus waiting on the background check.

[SeriousStudent]

At the very least you can spend your last moments doing something...

This. To quote Robert Heinlein, your status in Hell is determined by the size of the honor guard that precedes you. I'm going to try very hard to make that a multiple-digit number.

It's a real pity they did not have an open casting call for this. I know a bunch of people that live within a half-hour of Plano that would have acquitted themselves quite well. They are members of this board, too. Heck, I work in Plano, I would have driven over during lunch. :cool:

But as others have pointed out, that would not have played well with "the script."

[WOLFIE]

That this scenario shows the "terrorists" without at least proper eye pro going into a Sim scenario is telling.

TTAG is one of the very worst internet gun sites on the planet. It is so full of derp and retardery I don't even know where to begin.

This looks like a repeat of that scenario they did for the news a few years ago to "prove" that CCW folks would be worthless against an active-shooter. I have to wonder what the agenda is for the folks doing this.

That the history of real world active shooters and terrorist events has shown that armed good guys almost always make a significant difference should be a clue.

Pretty sure that IDPA vest wearing dude with the Glock in the mall in Nairobi is unimpressed with this bullshit.

Well said.

[secondstoryguy]

I ain't goin' out like that.

Cypress Hill reference?

[HCM]

I ain't goin' out like that.

Word.

[Hambo]

Florida's population topped 19 million, and there are over 1 million CWPs. Including active and retired cops, odds are that at least 1 out of every 19 people COULD BE armed. However, to get a CWP here you have to fire at least one round downrange. When checking out CWP classes for my wife, one place said that students fire exactly one round of underpowered .22. Another NRA class required 10 rounds at 5-7 yards slow fire. These classes count the same as a quality multi-day class that teaches shooting, retention, tactics with FOF scenarios, etc. My wild ass guess is that very few people pay hundreds of dollars and fire hundreds of rounds to get a CWP.

Out of all the people I know who have CWPs, there is one who carries a real gun (Glock 27) all the time. Most of the rest leave their gun at home or in the car, and they should given their choice of low quality micro-pistols.

What I would ask of most CWP holders:
1) Don't initiate an incident that gets everybody killed.
2) Don't shoot me.
3) Stay the hell out of my line of fire.
4) If you really want to do something useful, cover my back while I deal with the problem.

That's the best I can expect based on their level of skill and training.

[JR1572]

I ain't goin' out like that.


Cypress Hill reference?

I'm listening to that song right now.

JR1572

[Chuck Haggard]

A small terrorist cell is going to have problems with mission accomplishment if one of them is gut shot or knee capped with a .380 right from the get-go.

[NETim]

A small terrorist cell is going to have problems with mission accomplishment if one of them is gut shot or knee capped with a .380 right from the get-go.

Yes, even someone with a Taurus Talisman could OODA their loop.

[stimpee]

I'm just going to chime in and echo some of the sentiment here. I live in a low crime area, usually have worked in "secure" facilities, and don't go places where bad things tend to happen at high frequencies.

And yet, I carry a gun on me anywhere/anytime it is legal, as does my wife. Both of us have recently seriously started rethinking the type, size, etc of the gun that we carry, and have started to alter the things required to ensure we stack the odds a bit more in our favor. My wife is prepared to forego the "ease" with which she can pack her BG380, and has fallen in love with a certain new Vertec frame based Beretta that with some 18-20rd Mec-Gar mags will provide her substantially more firepower, and an ability to be far more effective with that firepower.

And shortly will work towards further enhancing the type and frequency of our training and practice.

Do I realistically think either or both of us could repel a full scale assault by "trained" terrorists? Nope. Do I plan to do everything possible to go down in a blaze of glory, derail their plans as much as possible and take as many goat-f*ckers with me as possible? You betcherass I will...

And I don't give a crap what some staged and ridiculous simulated scenario by people with an obvious agenda says...

Frankly, I think it is time for this "community" to start looking at how we can band together, and start training ourselves to prepare for these inevitable scenarios to play out in reality. The enemy has 20+ "training centers" here on US soil. It is time for us to do the same. The citizen militia is needed, because our government appears to have little concern.

Of course if we do that, we will probably be labeled terrorists and will face significant hurdles even though the government does nothing about the current Jihadist training camps...

That is all.

[Casual Friday]

Pretty sure that IDPA vest wearing dude with the Glock in the mall in Nairobi is unimpressed with this bullshit.

Best response in the thread. You win the internet today, and +75 tacticals.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Browsing before class, I found:

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/01/defensive-gun-ownership-myth-114262_full.html#.VLlX28nCZzI

It's an attack on the Kleck story. Now that is a touch of technical debate which I haven't had time to parse in a quick read.

However, the guts of the article is that since guns can be used for evil - whatever number of successful uses in self-defense in unambiguous, class cases do not justify the ownership of guns. So, cases like that of Lee Silverman are irrelevant as the doctor would be better off dead if his not having a gun (and others legally) would lead to less criminals killing each other. You get the idea.

[Malamute]

Browsing before class, I found:

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/01/defensive-gun-ownership-myth-114262_full.html#.VLlX28nCZzI

It's an attack on the Kleck story. Now that is a touch of technical debate which I haven't had time to parse in a quick read.

However, the guts of the article is that since guns can be used for evil - whatever number of successful uses in self-defense in unambiguous, class cases do not justify the ownership of guns. So, cases like that of Lee Silverman are irrelevant as the doctor would be better off dead if his not having a gun (and others legally) would lead to less criminals killing each other. You get the idea.

Is retardery a word?

[Chuck Haggard]

Is retardery a word?

Yes! I use it regularly.

I read that article, and then felt the need to comment on what utter bullshit it was.

[MichaelD]

Is retardery a word?

If it isn't, it should be.

[MDS]

There's a quote from someone that's apropos here, about deadly violence gone wrong. Let's see if I can recall:


You may find me dead in a terrorist attack one day, but by Buddha it will be in a puddle of my own bodily waste!

Anyway, something like that.

[David Armstrong]

Agreed. I saw a statistic a while back that stated only 10% of Texas CHL holders actually carry regularly. Of all my friends who I know have their CHL, about 50% can be expected to have a gun on them at any given time.
Louisiana is probably not much, if any, different, and I don't fault them. It's always going to be a compromise. I know folks who say they carry 24/7 to include when they sleep and shower, I know others who say they carry only when they are going certain places or at certain times. Risk analysis is part of life and while anything can theoretically happen at any time there are times where the chance of "X" happening become very remote. If someone just wants to prepare for what they feel is the bad time I say more power to them.

[serialsolver]

Bodyguards are also useless in terrorist attacks.

The French police officer that was guarding the cartoonist was killed with the folks he was guarding.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TAZ]

With regard to the low % of people carrying everywhere they go there is more to it than simple lazyness. I know in TX your ass can be fired by your employer if you violate policy, so lots of people leave their carry guns in their cars during work hours. You can claim irresponsibility all you want, but people have to balance the probability of being exposed and fired vs. fired upon. At this stage mass shooting across the country are a low percentage event. Individuals probably have a better chance of being struck by lightning after having won the lottery than being caught in a shoot out. People play those odds and come to the conclusion that the paycheck and bennies are worth more. To a degree I'm thankful the odds are that way.

I wish there was a way to better balance property rights, individual rights and corporate CYA. But until we can somehow offer immunity to employers who don't ban guns from being sued or make them feel they won't be taken to the cleaners we will be stuck with having to deal with non permissive environments. Given the fact that everyone in this country is sue happy out the a** I don't see changes to corporate policies.

[Drang]

Chris Hernandez weighs in with what I think is a pretty good take-down: Addicting Info’s nonsensical “analysis” of an active shooter simulation (http://chrishernandezauthor.com/2015/01/16/addicting-infos-nonsensical-analysis-of-an-active-shooter-simulation/)

Also. Like so many of you, I know folks here in WA who have CPLs, and don't even own a gun. Some of them are laboring under the misapprehension that it authorizes concealed carry of any weapon, because up 'til the late 90s it was called a "CWP", even though the verbiage said it was "handgun only." Also also, I met Mrs. Drang the day after she got her "CWP" and had gone shopping for her first pistol. (She got a Taurus 85, but she's come around since then.)(I blame the Canadian friends she was shopping with. Apparently, the phrase "good gun for a woman" was uttered a few times...)

[Alpha Sierra]

W. But until we can somehow offer immunity to employers who don't ban guns from being sued

That doesn't work. The OH Revised Code indemnifies employers BOTH ways (if they allow carry or if they prohibit it) and I guarantee you that the number of workplaces here where you can carry and not be fired is even smaller than it is most anyplace else.

The bottom line is this: assess your risk and take action even if policy has to be ignored.

[Alpha Sierra]

The enemy has 20+ "training centers" here on US soil.

This pisses me off like you have no idea.

[GardoneVT]

With regard to the low % of people carrying everywhere they go there is more to it than simple lazyness. I know in TX your ass can be fired by your employer if you violate policy, so lots of people leave their carry guns in their cars during work hours. You can claim irresponsibility all you want, but people have to balance the probability of being exposed and fired vs. fired upon. At this stage mass shooting across the country are a low percentage event. Individuals probably have a better chance of being struck by lightning after having won the lottery than being caught in a shoot out. People play those odds and come to the conclusion that the paycheck and bennies are worth more. To a degree I'm thankful the odds are that way.

I wish there was a way to better balance property rights, individual rights and corporate CYA. But until we can somehow offer immunity to employers who don't ban guns from being sued or make them feel they won't be taken to the cleaners we will be stuck with having to deal with non permissive environments. Given the fact that everyone in this country is sue happy out the a** I don't see changes to corporate policies.

The reason most firms ban carry comes down to Tort Law precedence. In my business law course , the professor (a sitting Federal judge) made the point that any action an employee takes while on the clock is liable to his or her employer.

Ergo, Johnny Honor Student shoots up a business, he-or his survived family-can sue not only the intended victim who shot back, but also their employer. If said employer locally prohibits carry, that means the employee was acting outside of the company's authorization -and provides HR with justification to terminate the staff member after the fact.From Corporate's perspective, its cheaper for the staff to get massacred then for the spree killer to so much as get a papercut on the premesis.

[Malamute]

Is there significant difference between a terrorist going into action thinking there MIGHT be someone there armed, and KNOWING there is someone there armed. At least, I'm curious to know if you SMEs think that's an important distinction.


Not an SME, but this is part of my questions about that scenario. I believe there are several problems with it.

First, the cops playing the terrs KNEW somebody was going to have a sims gun and would try to shoot them. They also KNEW if they got hit with it they werent going to be hurt. I think that changes people reactions. I don't think they were trying to truly evade getting shot. Knowing how a situation is going to play out changes how you deal with it.

I think the cops playing the terrs were frikin' ninjas compared to what would be termed in the media "well trained" terrs. From the video footage of various events, it looks like theyve been given basic familarity training, but dont look like long time users that are really comfortable handling guns or look like they really know what they were doing. "Rudimentary" is more what I'd consider their training. Getting some local range ninjas (or open carry ninjas) may be more similar to the terrs than the guys they used. Not telling them there would be resistance may help also. Let them get OJT. In real life the training curve seems really steep.

From the video of the mock scenario, it wasnt really like the Paris situation. They came in the conference room, asking who was who, asking for certain names and people, not just walking in and hosing down everybody on the spot. Possibly time for distraction and popping one or both while they looked for the particular people they wanted, then shot each one they had intended to murder once in the head. They may have shot nearly everybody in there by the end of it, but the account I read said they asked for people by name before shooting them.

The news reports said they were encumbered with an AK each, and an RPG. That must have been awkward handling inside, just walking around and in and out if doorways.

[TAZ]

The reason most firms ban carry comes down to Tort Law precedence. In my business law course , the professor (a sitting Federal judge) made the point that any action an employee takes while on the clock is liable to his or her employer.

Ergo, Johnny Honor Student shoots up a business, he-or his survived family-can sue not only the intended victim who shot back, but also their employer. If said employer locally prohibits carry, that means the employee was acting outside of the company's authorization -and provides HR with justification to terminate the staff member after the fact.From Corporate's perspective, its cheaper for the staff to get massacred then for the spree killer to so much as get a papercut on the premesis.

Exactly. This is the cycle that must be broken or people will continue to face the choice of feed my family or carry a gun and risk not being able to do so.

There has to be a way around that idiotic concept. Ironic that employers are liable for the actions of their employees, but parents in general aren't. IMO laws need to be crafted such that an employer is not liable for actions outside normal job requirements unless it can be proven they knew the employee was a danger.

[RoyGBiv]

Exactly. This is the cycle that must be broken or people will continue to face the choice of feed my family or carry a gun and risk not being able to do so.

There has to be a way around that idiotic concept. Ironic that employers are liable for the actions of their employees, but parents in general aren't. IMO laws need to be crafted such that an employer is not liable for actions outside normal job requirements unless it can be proven they knew the employee was a danger.
Texas has it covered...

For Employer...
Enrolled 2011 http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/82R/billtext/html/SB00321F.htm

Sec. 52.063. IMMUNITY FROM CIVIL LIABILITY. (a) Except in
cases of gross negligence, a public or private employer, or the
employer's principal, officer, director, employee, or agent, is not
liable in a civil action for personal injury, death, property
damage, or any other damages resulting from or arising out of an
occurrence involving a firearm or ammunition that the employer is
required to allow on the employer's property under this subchapter.

For citizens...
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/CP/htm/CP.83.htm

Sec. 83.001. CIVIL IMMUNITY. A defendant who uses force or deadly force that is justified under Chapter 9, Penal Code, is immune from civil liability for personal injury or death that results from the defendant's use of force or deadly force, as applicable.

[TAZ]

Sadly neither of those laws has resulted in my employer dropping their firearms policy. So I have to make a risk assessment and choose whether I risk loosing my job for a still super low % bad event or leave my gun in the car. It sux

[Wheeler]

Sadly neither of those laws has resulted in my employer dropping their firearms policy. So I have to make a risk assessment and choose whether I risk loosing my job for a still super low % bad event or leave my gun in the car. It sux

I work in a total Nonpermissive Environment. I made the same assessment and chose to adjust my methods of carry. My personal motto is "Concealed means concealed. It stays concealed until such time as it needs to not be concealed."
That's not a criticism of your choice, just a different decision.

[45dotACP]

Browsing before class, I found:

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/01/defensive-gun-ownership-myth-114262_full.html#.VLlX28nCZzI

It's an attack on the Kleck story. Now that is a touch of technical debate which I haven't had time to parse in a quick read.

However, the guts of the article is that since guns can be used for evil - whatever number of successful uses in self-defense in unambiguous, class cases do not justify the ownership of guns. So, cases like that of Lee Silverman are irrelevant as the doctor would be better off dead if his not having a gun (and others legally) would lead to less criminals killing each other. You get the idea.
Sounds about like basic gun control logic to me. Nice and theoretical and based upon the assumption that if all guns were banned people would stop killing each other with them....

Anti's are weird. I've never met such a large group that can buy into the folly that if they made guns illegal, they'd just turn into bubbles or fairy farts. I don't buy it. Not when French terrorists can be walking around in Paris with such heavy firepower in spite of every law to the contrary.

[TAZ]

I work in a total Nonpermissive Environment. I made the same assessment and chose to adjust my methods of carry. My personal motto is "Concealed means concealed. It stays concealed until such time as it needs to not be concealed."
That's not a criticism of your choice, just a different decision.

I know what you mean, but you and any others who make that choice are in a very big minority. Which is why the % of people who carry everywhere is so low.

I'm conflicted with placing legal onus on employers to adequately protect their employees while on site as that kind of flies in the face of private property rights, but we may come to a time when we will have to make a call on priorities: self preservation or property rights. I'd rather that choice be made voluntarily by employers than legal mandate. I'm not holding my breath though for either solution, so it will have to come down to personal choices re policy.

[joshs]

The reason most firms ban carry comes down to Tort Law precedence. In my business law course , the professor (a sitting Federal judge) made the point that any action an employee takes while on the clock is liable to his or her employer.

That's a vast oversimplification of the respondeat superior test. Most jurisdictions require that the employees action is taken as part of their job duties. E.g., a bouncer assaults someone=likely vicarious liability, but a pharmacist assaults someone=vicarious liability unlikely.

Disclaimer: this is not legal advice, and no attorney client relationship is expressed or implied.

[GardoneVT]

That's a vast oversimplification of the respondeat superior test. Most jurisdictions require that the employees action is taken as part of their job duties. E.g., a bouncer assaults someone=likely vicarious liability, but a pharmacist assaults someone=vicarious liability unlikely.

Disclaimer: this is not legal advice, and no attorney client relationship is expressed or implied.

From a corporate risk perspective, the game plan is avoiding the expense of litigation period, not necessarily whether or not they'd win .Joe Badguy has nothing to lose , so he's going to file suit regardless of the merits of the case. Which means the firm's still paying an attorney to at minimum negotiate a settlement.

The cost of an attorney goes to zero if the office staff gets shot up. Then it's the insurance company's problem.

[stimpee]

This pisses me off like you have no idea.

As it should. The word needs to be spread far and wide. As more people need to be pissed off enough to start to take actionable steps to counter this...

[joshs]

From a corporate risk perspective, the game plan is avoiding the expense of litigation period, not necessarily whether or not they'd win .Joe Badguy has nothing to lose , so he's going to file suit regardless of the merits of the case. Which means the firm's still paying an attorney to at minimum negotiate a settlement.

The cost of an attorney goes to zero if the office staff gets shot up. Then it's the insurance company's problem.

You can insure against both risks.

JB also likely needs an attorney, who has quite a lot to lose if the firm ends up paying zero.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk 2

[Wheeler]

I know what you mean, but you and any others who make that choice are in a very big minority. Which is why the % of people who carry everywhere is so low.

I'm conflicted with placing legal onus on employers to adequately protect their employees while on site as that kind of flies in the face of private property rights, but we may come to a time when we will have to make a call on priorities: self preservation or property rights. I'd rather that choice be made voluntarily by employers than legal mandate. I'm not holding my breath though for either solution, so it will have to come down to personal choices re policy.

Just to clarify, I don't carry where it's illegal. Georgia law is pretty specific about where I can and can't legally carry. I do my best to adhere to that guideline. I also tèy to be respectful of other folks property rights, which is why I have issues with the majority of the OC Zealots.

[Alpha Sierra]

I'm conflicted with placing legal onus on employers to adequately protect their employees while on site as that kind of flies in the face of private property rights,

I'm not conflicted at all. They can't have it both ways.

[John Hearne]

I apologize as I haven't read every message and someone may have made this point already.

To me, this is about searching for perfect answers. We want answers that involve the good guys going home at night and the bad guys being smited. The real world doesn't work that way. Often we are stuck choosing which option sucks less.

Suppose four gunmen attack a mall. In the first contact with an armed citizen, the citizen kills one, wounds another, and is then killed. Is this sub-optimal - YES! But, you have reduced the enemy numbers by 25% and reduced the effectiveness of one of the remaining bad guys. You've also shown them that this won't be the cake walk there were expecting.

Suppose that they are engaged by another armed citizen who also kills one and wounds another before being killed. Is this sub-optimal - YES! But, you have now reduced the enemy by 1/2 and dramatically reduced their effectiveness. Will this group be able to round up everyone and massacre them, probably not. Will they be slowed significantly? Probably. Is this a problem of the size that "professional first responders" can more easily address? Yes, it is.

If we search for perfect answers to these problems, we're not going to find them. If the history of terrorism in the last several decades has taught us anything, it's that there will be casualties - it's just a matter of how many and how do we reduce that number within the confines of the resources we have. As best I can tell, killing the terrorists as soon as possible is the best of the sucky options.

[45dotACP]

Yeah, I wouldn't call leaving a dead terrorist on the floor useless...sure I didn't survive and that sucks and my friends and family will mourn me, but that's one less terrorist to take a Kosher market hostage and kill 4 people who will be dearly missed by their families and friends.

[Malamute]

...If we search for perfect answers to these problems, we're not going to find them. If the history of terrorism in the last several decades has taught us anything, it's that there will be casualties - it's just a matter of how many and how do we reduce that number within the confines of the resources we have. As best I can tell, killing the terrorists as soon as possible is the best of the sucky options.


Anything that not only kills any of them, but slows them with either casualties or harrasing fire, can limit their movements, give others time to get out, and other help to arrive.

I dont think it would necessarily take a large volume of fire to do that.

[TAZ]

Each and every one of us here understands that there is no such thing as a guarantee of any sorts when the bullets start flying. You could do everything just like a Delta guy and still get dead, or you could step on your willy and kill every bad guy whilst jumping about in agony. We is all agree that doing something even if the end result only slows down the shooters long enough to kill us is better than just getting dead. Each of us also understands that if they are shooting at me they aren't shooting at my wife or kids or ... and are willing to take the chance of getting hurt or killed if it means our families have a better chance at survival. These concepts are foreign to a lot of our liberal "friends". They also have an agenda and so they will use every means necessary to discredit any ideas that are contrary to that agenda. If guns can't be 100% effective and save every one then they are useless for civilians and should only be handled by the government.

I'd like to see what happens to a SWAT team member or 2 sitting on their asses with their guns hidden when a normal gunman walks in. Similar result I bet, but in pretty sure it won't make any headlines. Doesn't fit the agenda.

[Coyotesfan97]

I've done plenty of FoF as a student, actor, and instructor. Someone said it before but those were two "bad guys " who knew they were in a Sims scenario and they knew there was one actor with a gun inside. Their tactics at times sucked even though they were doing slow and deliberate searches. I'm not sure how many active shooters do that. They muzzled each other multiple times. They turned their backs on long hallways.

They took multiple rounds and continued the scenario. The actors with the handgun took rounds and went down.

It's a different story if you put someone if there who knows angles and how to play them.

[1slow]

Put the attackers and defenders in t shirts, safety goggles and airsoft helmets. A pain penalty changes the dynamic.

[Mitchell, Esq.]

All I got from this was:

1 Untrained people aren't going to react to the standard they believe they will under stress
2 Better to have a gun and delay/force the expenditure of time/ammo on yourself than allow terrorists to be unopposed
3 Force on force exposes flaws and teaches lessons yet again

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I had recorded the Terror at the Mall HBO special and my take away points watching it were:

1. Of thousands of people, very few were armed.
2. The Kenyan police and military commanders lacked true grit and just postured outside.
3. A small number of armed folks who defied orders managed to save scores of people.

In my FOF fun and games, a prepared defender who isn't blitzed can truly mess up folks entering a room. I agree that even airsoft can give you an ouch. They break the skin close up (I know - wah, wah - full auto ain't fun).

[Drang]

In a follow-up to the post I linked to earlier, Chris Hernandez has some info from one of the "bad guys" in the simulation, who says that--surprise!--the spin being put on it is garbage: A “Bad Guy” from the Charlie Hebdo Simulation Speaks | chrishernandezauthor (http://chrishernandezauthor.com/2015/01/22/a-bad-guy-from-the-charlie-hebdo-simulation-speaks/)

[Tamara]

In a follow-up to the post I linked to earlier, Chris Hernandez has some info from one of the "bad guys" in the simulation, who says that--surprise!--the spin being put on it is garbage: A “Bad Guy” from the Charlie Hebdo Simulation Speaks | chrishernandezauthor (http://chrishernandezauthor.com/2015/01/22/a-bad-guy-from-the-charlie-hebdo-simulation-speaks/)

It was Sonny Puzikas against a random handful of blog commenters? He's more than a match for a firearms instructor, let alone a random toter's permit holder!

*poker face smilie goes here*

(Good comments here (http://www.pagunblog.com/2015/01/15/the-media-will-spin-things-for-their-own-purposes/) on the media spin, with Robert F. showing up to explain his side of things.)

[Chuck Haggard]

Fully realizing the issues involved with Sonny P and the recent shoothouse mess, I've worked with him in the past and I can say for a fact that he is a talented shooter and a tough motherfucker. He's also competitive by nature, if he got shot by Joe CCW in those scenarios AT ALL then that's sayin something.

[1slow]

Fully realizing the issues involved with Sonny P and the recent shoothouse mess, I've worked with him in the past and I can say for a fact that he is in fact a talented shooter and a tough motherfucker. He's also competitive by nature, if he got shot by Joe CCW in those scenarios AT ALL then that's sayin something.

I have trained with him in the past as well and agree on all counts.

[Tamara]

Fully realizing the issues involved with Sonny P and the recent shoothouse mess, I've worked with him in the past and I can say for a fact that he is in fact a talented shooter and a tough motherfucker. He's also competitive by nature, if he got shot by Joe CCW in those scenarios AT ALL then that's sayin something.

Aapart from my (admittedly Too Soon) aside, I was being dead serious.

[Chuck Haggard]

Aapart from my (admittedly Too Soon) aside, I was being dead serious.

I meant my comment to be more along the lines of general info