Concealed Carrier Shuts Down Active Shooter at SC Nightclub

[Jacque67 7,328]

4 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

I wasn’t raised in a gun culture either, but I certainly understand the right of self protection.  I have also worked very closely with many police departments, and it is a myth that they are there to proactively protect anyone.  If one is lucky, a police officer may be minutes away, but more than likely it will be a 10+ minute response time.

I thought you were an engineer. Why did you work closely with police departments? You are implying the US police are ineffective? Rather bleak, dare I say dystopian?

[jg121783 3,921]

1 hour ago, Jacque67 said:

I thought you were an engineer. Why did you work closely with police departments? You are implying the US police are ineffective? Rather bleak, dare I say dystopian?

I would not call them ineffective but 9 times out of 10 they arrive on the scene after the crime is committed. I don't blame them because they can't be everywhere at once. That coupled with the fact that the courts have ruled police have no legal obligation to protect the public means you and you alone are responsible for your own and your families defense against criminals. I am sure some of you are familiar with sheriff Clark from Milwaukee. He actually put out radio ads a few years ago letting the public know his deputies try their best but they can't be everywhere so people should be responsible for their own defense.

[Dashinka 24,769]

1 hour ago, Jacque67 said:

I thought you were an engineer. Why did you work closely with police departments? You are implying the US police are ineffective? Rather bleak, dare I say dystopian?

I was a volunteer firefighter for 13 years.  I am not implying the police are ineffective in their job, I am saying if you are expecting them to be proactive in stopping crime or an incident, or provide personal protection, it simply comes down to luck as to how soon they can get to a scene.  It is much the same as firefighting, no matter a department’s intention, they cannot be there before the fire starts

[Jacque67 7,328]

Still curious about canvassing with a gun on the hip. When do you guys decide to carry or not or is it strapped on 24/7?

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

12 hours ago, Jacque67 said:

Maybe the hot chick was crazy? They usually are. Lol. Like your wife I haven't been raised in a gun culture so I understand her position. Good to hear you're doing well. 

But can you answer the question. Would you carry a gun on your hip when canvassing? Would it not be off putting in your area? (I've never visited NC)

No, I would not do that. If I were canvassing then I would carry concealed and not open carry, but it would all depend on what I was wearing that day. 

[Jacque67 7,328]

12 minutes ago, cyberfx1024 said:

No, I would not do that. If I were canvassing then I would carry concealed and not open carry, but it would all depend on what I was wearing that day. 

Thanks for answering. So concealed because it's less intimidating? Sounds like everyone should go open and relive the days of the Wild West! Lol. What a world.

[bcking 3,157]

2 hours ago, cyberfx1024 said:

No, I would not do that. If I were canvassing then I would carry concealed and not open carry, but it would all depend on what I was wearing that day. 

Sounds like it's part of your fashion statement.

 

Do you have different guns for different outfits? Perhaps matching colours?

 

I try to match my belt and my shoes. If I go brown with one, I go brown with the other. Would I need a brown gun as well? I guess gray can strike a balance between brown and black.

[Ban Hammer 13,512]

4 hours ago, Jacque67 said:

I thought you were an engineer. Why did you work closely with police departments? You are implying the US police are ineffective? Rather bleak, dare I say dystopian?

look no further than the latest shooting in florida, where the police didn't go in.

[bcking 3,157]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Prevention+of+firearm-related+injuries+with+restrictive+licensing+and+concealed+carry+laws%3A+An+Eastern+Association+for+the+Surgery+of+Trauma+systematic+review.

 

Systematic review looking at concealed carry was published in 2016. They didn't do a meta-analysis, so no forest plot like the last one I posted. They just summarize each study.

 

13 studies examining the impact of concealed carry laws on firearm-related injuries/death. 

 

McDowall et al.24 were the first to study this issue, using interrupted time series analysis, analyzing data from multiple states and incorporating overall US homicide trends into the models as controls. They demonstrated that homicides increased after introduction of CCLs in four of the five areas studied, with a range of -12 to +75%, and an average change of +26%.

In 1997, Lott and Mustard 25 examined cross-sectional time-series data for US counties from 1977 to 1992. They estimated that if states without right to carry CCLs had adopted them in 1992, more than 1,500 murders could have been avoided yearly across the United States, a 7.65% decrease. Their models also suggested marked decreases in violent crime and costs associated with criminal activity if CCL laws were adopted. Their work has been heavily cited and is frequently credited as influencing the expansion of CCL programs across the United States.

Citing unaddressed missing data and inconsistencies in the Lott analysis, Black and Nagin 26 used the same data and conducted their own analysis. Using multivariate fixed-effects modeling, they found no net effect on homicides once year-to-year differences were factored in as a covariate, absent from Lott's original analysis. Using the same database, but including data through 1994, Ludwig 27 added the effect of minimum age requirements into a multivariate model and found that adult homicide rates were not impacted overall and actually increased after CCL laws in some states.

Olson and Maltz 28 were concerned with Lott's use of aggregation of state and local data and when they deaggregated the data with regards to weapon type, victim sex and age, and victim-offender relationship, they were unable to consistently reproduce Lott's findings. However, when multiple models were used and the data were restricted to counties with populations greater than 100,000 people, they found a 6.52% decrease in homicides, which they felt could be attributed to CCLs.

In a data set limited to Florida, Kovandzic and Marvell 29 used fixed-effects Poisson regression modeling to analyze homicide rates and found no effect or a slight increase after CCLs (0.005–0.104). Similarly, using Poisson regression modeling of National Center for Health Statistics data from 1979 through 1998, Hepburn et al.30 did not find any consistent association between CCL licensing and homicide rates in the United States.   Rosengart et al.31 found a trend toward increased homicide rates after “shall carry” laws were implemented, but it was not statistically significant (RR, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.99–1.24). Of note, they also investigated specific gun regulation statutes, such as minimum age for purchase, and found no single regulation effective.

In a 2012 study, using a large, pooled US data set and looking specifically at “shall carry” versus “may carry” laws, LaValle and Glover 32 found that “shall carry” laws were associated with increases in homicide rates of 20% to 30%, but “may carry” laws were associated with decreases of 20% to 30%. In 2014, Ginwalla and colleagues 35 reported results of homicide rates preimplementation and postimplementation of Senate Bill 1108 in Arizona. The bill allowed for CCL and relaxed training regulations for firearm ownership. The authors found increases in firearm purchases and a 27% increase in firearm homicides (RR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.02–1.58), without an increase in other violent crime.

Most recently, Aneja et al.36 published a research white paper based on a 2004 publication from the National Research Council. The National Research Council article criticized the “more guns, less crime” data offered by Lott. In the Aneja article, the authors added additional county and state data, and many additional covariates, including incarceration rates and homicide rate fluctuations attributable to the crack cocaine epidemic. With these additional considerations, the authors concluded that the net effect of CCLs was to increase homicide rates by 3%, as well as increasing aggravated assaults and rapes by up to 38%.

The final two papers included in this analysis specifically addressed the possibility of CCL holders as perpetrators, particularly given the increased homicide rates found after CCL implementation in some studies. In 2013, the Violence Policy Center published a retrospective case series examining CCL holders and mass shootings in the U.S. from May 2007 until October 2013.33 They found that CCL holders were involved in at least 386 fatal shootings during the study period, leading to at least 540 deaths including 14 law enforcement officers. Subsequent to this work, the Violence Policy Center Website has maintained updated information on CCL holders, homicides, mass shootings, and suicides.

In a more scientific analysis, Phillips et al.34 explored the differences in criminal convictions over 10 years between holders and nonholders of a CCL permit in the state of Texas. Although license holders were far less likely than nonholders to be subsequently convicted of a crime, their crimes tended to be more focused on those that would occur with the increased availability of a weapon. CCL holders were 2.2× more likely to commit sexual offenses, 4.7× more likely to commit deadly conduct, and 2.3× more likely to commit a homicide.     There may be newer studies, but the review was published in 2016 so it is reasonably up to date. A quick pubmed search did not identify any other large studies in the last 2 years that would be added to it. (I can get the full citation for any of the individual papers if anyone is interested).   The authors recommendations:   We recommend against the use of CCLs solely as a strategy to decrease the incidence of firearm injuries within populations. At the current time, the data do not support a “crime suppressive” effect of CCLs, and, in fact, may increase firearm injuries. However, no definitive conclusions can be drawn at this time, given the data limitations and mixed results. Crime rates do appear to influence applications for concealed carry permits, which could lead to a worrying cycle of increased concealed carrying, and further increases in firearm injury rates.43 We suggest that ongoing longitudinal cohort studies of concealed carry permit holders continue, as some licensees were found more likely to commit assault and firearm-related crimes than case-matched controls in one study.

Edited March 18, 2018 by bcking

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

4 hours ago, Jacque67 said:

I thought you were an engineer. Why did you work closely with police departments? You are implying the US police are ineffective? Rather bleak, dare I say dystopian?

Information Tech, its rough out there. Don't bring a knife to an Agile Scrum standup.

[Jacque67 7,328]

Talking of fashion....Never go full Gorka!

Sebastian Gorka loves guns. 

The former deputy assistant to President Donald Trump has an "eclectic" and wide-ranging collection of firearms: modern handguns, AK and AR military rifles, SW 1917 and Webley 38 revolvers, and .22 caliber rifles, among others. 

Every day, Gorka carries two pistols, a tourniquet, and a copy of the US Constitution. Naturally, he's a Second Amendment enthusiast. 

"The Second Amendment isn't ultimately about stopping rapists or bank robbers. It's about the people's last line of defense against a strategic level threat. It's not about hunting whitetails," Gorka told Recoil, a magazine focused on guns. 

After the story appeared featuring a photo of Gorka posing in a brown suede vest, people on Twitter mocked the former presidential adviser for his gun-toting poses and McLovin-styled attire:

[Jacque67 7,328]

http://www.businessinsider.com/sebastian-gorka-always-carries-pistols-touniquet-2017-11

[Lupigirl 67]

This is obviously just my opinion, but when I see people walking around with guns on their hips (which is often, I live in AZ) I get nervous that a) something will trigger them and they’ll start shooting  or b) a nut job or criminal will see an available weapon, grab it, and start shooting.  Open-carry does not make me feel safe.  

[bcking 3,157]

Feeling safer and being safer don't necessarily go hand in hand. Something can make you feel uneasy, but actually improve you safety.

 

Though in this case it doesn't appear to make you safer either, as I showed with a review of the literature. Only one study showed a significant reduction, and their findings haven't been able to be replicated (even using the same dataset), and multiple studies have used the same data set and highlighted the let confounders that led to the original study's false likely false conclusion.

 

The data also doesn't really show that it puts you at that much increased risk either though. The effect sizes were mostly small, and in several cases not significant.

[yuna628 9,712]

I'm not really supportive of open carry and am glad we don't really allow for it in this state. Being in states that do allow it make me extremely uncomfortable seeing someone do it. Conceal carry is less offensive and less obnoxious to me. It's more respecting of others, and tbh I believe it provides better assistance to yourself and those around you, should you ever find yourself in one of those supposed scenarios you 'need it' for. You are in reality just as unsafe with a C carrier than you are with an O carrier. They could equally snap or do something dumb just as quickly. However, I'd rather in general go about my business in peace instead of having major anxiety that the person brandishing his rifle out in the open is either nefarious, 'normal', or just a bragging jerk that thinks he's a hotshot. When they brandish and fire them in their backyards and towards our homes in these parts it doesn't make me feel safer either.