That incident at the George Webb restaurant

[mmc45414]

Over in the Shooting incidents in the news thread in GD there was mention of this:
https://pistol-forum.com/showthread....l=1#post760233
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/07/08...ng-attack.html
TLDR: Some big strong thug who is agitated about his service goes back into the kitchen and hits, with what appears to be all his might, a woman at the grill who is just standing there defenseless, who is reported to be "seriously" injured. Subsequently a coworker confronts the thug and he decides he is not mad enough to take a bullet over breakfast and leaves. Started this thread because I think it is worth a little more chatter.

For one thing, I think this woman, who has probably not benefited from any formal training, seemed as willing to shoot as the thug seemed willing to hit her colleague (sure doesn't look like somebody who never hit a women before...). I liked how as soon as the thug came behind the counter she was starting to make ready (but had not drawn), but if he deescalated she easily could have. I agree she could have justifiably shot him, should she had might be part of the discussion. I know I cringe when I consider how low the bar is for getting a CHL in most states, but here is somebody who had only basic skill or knowledge and their permit made a difference.

Another thing is that this woman with only very basic equipment was able to stop a much more powerful adversary. She didn't have a G19 with a WML and two spare mags and a fixed blade knife and a 1k lumen handheld, she just had a (probably) LC9 or maybe even a LCP (and it is probably safe to speculate she has never been to Thunder Ranch...). Part of my noting this is that I have been being more diligent about at least having a J-Frame, even if I am not wearing pants with a belt. Not advocating, just contemplating that the curve is not linear between nothing and something. Yeah sure, if the thug had pulled out a Glock she woulda been on the losing end of things, but she was already in the losing end of things standing up to the big guy who was in a room full of big knives.

Also interesting that the employer accepts their permitted employees being in the position to defend themselves.

Also noting that this is a "win" but will not show up in any FBI or CDC statistic saying so.

Anyway, just some thoughts I had, I drive a lot and have time to think

[blues]

Part of my noting this is that I have been being more diligent about at least having a J-Frame, even if I am not wearing pants with a belt.

Same here. My "J" frame works pretty well in my sweat shorts in a DSG holster without a belt...which facilitates early morning or late night walks with the dog. I much prefer AIWB to pocket carry in such attire.

[ranger]

"I cringe when I consider how low the bar is for getting a CHL in most states". I am against setting any "skill" bar for getting a CHL, CCW, etc. - I am confident that the "skill" bar could be set very quickly to deny 99% of the population access to a firearm by those that wish to deny 2A.

[Zincwarrior]

Interesting that the BG has not been arrested at time of the story.

[Zincwarrior]

"I cringe when I consider how low the bar is for getting a CHL in most states". I am against setting any "skill" bar for getting a CHL, CCW, etc. - I am confident that the "skill" bar could be set very quickly to deny 99% of the population access to a firearm by those that wish to deny 2A.

I agree. I like Texas' older requirements of one full day of training, but could see it used just as you suggest in less friendly states.

[mmc45414]

"I cringe when I consider how low the bar is for getting a CHL in most states". I am against setting any "skill" bar for getting a CHL, CCW, etc. - I am confident that the "skill" bar could be set very quickly to deny 99% of the population access to a firearm by those that wish to deny 2A.

Yes, I agree, didn't mean to imply otherwise, but I probably did.

ETA: To elaborate a little more I what I was trying to mean, is that we all here expect a high level of competence from ourselves, but here was somebody who surely only has very basic training and turned an attacker away.

[JodyH]

I agree. I like Texas' older requirements of one full day of training, but could see it used just as you suggest in less friendly states.

As a CCW instructor for around 15 years and hundreds of students i'll say this, the classes don't make a bit of difference IMO.
The 5% who are dipshits are still dipshits even after 16 hours of coursework.
The 1% of folks who are switched on and serious don't get anything out of a stupidly basic course like a CCW class.
The 94% who are just good folks in the middle, they usually have the basics down and the class is just a formality.

After you have a few hundred students come through class you realize that:
A) Most people who want a CCW are good people with good intentions and common sense and they'll do just fine without a class.
B) 95% of them will NEVER carry a gun on a regular basis.
C) You can't fix stupid with any amount of training.

[olstyn]

I am against setting any "skill" bar for getting a CHL, CCW, etc. - I am confident that the "skill" bar could be set very quickly to deny 99% of the population access to a firearm by those that wish to deny 2A.

Yeah, it's a tough balance to get right, and I think it's better to keep the bar to entry low vs requiring someone to achieve a high level of skill. I like the way MN does it pretty well. You have to pass a shooting proficiency test, but the state doesn't set specific requirements for what that test entails; they leave that up to individual instructors to determine, and most of them just want to see that you have basic safety concepts down and can hit a target without spraying rounds all over the place. My initial reaction to being tested that way after I'd already been shooting USPSA matches for a year or two was "this is absurdly easy and should be harder," but having had some time to reflect on it in the almost 5 years since (I'm due to renew this fall), I've come around to the idea that we shouldn't encumber rights any more than we must.

While I still think it would be great if everybody who had a carry permit got into USPSA/IDPA/IPSC/etc, because those sports are a great way to increase skill and ingrain good safety habits, most won't, and that's probably OK. The "blood in the streets" arguments that a lot of antis were making back when shall issue started becoming a thing just haven't turned into reality, so I think we're alright even with the basic level of skill most people have.

[Guerrero]

Interesting that the BG has not been arrested at time of the story.

This happened in my city. I think they got the guy a couple days later.

[Duces Tecum]

"I cringe when I consider how low the bar is for getting a CHL in most states". I am against setting any "skill" bar for getting a CHL, CCW, etc. - I am confident that the "skill" bar could be set very quickly to deny 99% of the population access to a firearm by those that wish to deny 2A.

At one time I favored "skill" tests for CHLs, but then one of you guys (sadly, I've forgotten who) wrote something that changed my perspective. His observation was that Constitutional Carry states have no skill tests at all, yet their firearm accident rates are not statistically greater than those states with strict "skill" requirements for licensing.