TexasCHLforum.com

Keith B wrote: I am an officer responding to a call of, or just heard gunshots down the mall where I am working off-duty security. I immediately head to the scene, only to see 6 people with guns drawn. I have no idea who ANY of them are. I now have to take time to sort out who are the BG's and who aren't. The BG can easily identify me from my uniform. If there is only one gun displayed, and they are waving it around, it is a lot easier and shorter time for me to make the call on their intentions and potentially get drawn down on the subject vs. sorting through the others and maybe not picking out the right one.

I hear you. But we simply don't see this happen in real life.

On the other hand, we DO see occassional rampage shootings, whether at the mall or at VT, where the BG is the only one with a gun and people are simply slaughtered.

And once in a while we see one of these things go down where there is an armed citizen present who stops the attack or at least limits the carnage.

In real life, when armed citizens intervene they do so immediately. This is because they are already present at the scene, even though by mere chance.

The LEO response is typically some amount of time afterward because they almost always have to be called to the scene. So by the time the LEO gets there, things have quieted down. That might be why we do not see the scenario that you posed.

So I think society has more to gain by addressing those situations that happen more frequently rather than worry about those that remain hypothetical.

Maybe LEO's might have to modify their training if the actions of armed citizens become a bigger part of the mix.

frankie_the_yankee wrote:So I think society has more to gain by addressing those situations that happen more frequently rather than worry about those that remain hypothetical.

I agree. The current policy is that it's better to let a killer go on a rampage in a victim disarmament zone than take the outside chance that a legally armed citizen might have some kind of mishap.

This can't be repeated often enough.

- Jim

so, whaddya think of the DISD's SWAT Team?

TX Rancher wrote:In answer to your question "Should teachers be allowed to pack a gun?", yes...not only should they be allowed, but a certain percentage in every school should be required!

I mean after all, these are our childern they're responsible for.
<snip>

Venus Pax wrote:I hope she wins and sets a precedence for all states.

with both posters

frankie_the_yankee wrote: I hear you. But we simply don't see this happen in real life.

On the other hand, we DO see occassional rampage shootings, whether at the mall or at VT, where the BG is the only one with a gun and people are simply slaughtered.

Agreed. And we can't forget that the mall shooter in Salt Lake City was killed by an off-duty police officer. Given the logic presented in the original article, it seems that would have fallen under the category of Things That Are Bad.

I mean seriously...Someone with a gun and no uniform? They try to tell us how dangerous that is, yet in the aftermath, they turn around and say things like this:

An off-duty police officer having an early Valentine's Day dinner with his wife was credited Tuesday with helping stop a rampage in a crowded shopping mall by an 18-year-old gunman who killed five people before he was cut down....."There is no question that his quick actions saved the lives of numerous other people," the police chief said.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/02/ ... 6711.shtml

They can't have it both ways. Either having armed citizens is good, or that off-duty cop was an unacceptable risk to society, innocent bystanders, the responding uniformed officers, and himself.

I think to an extent , you folks are looking at this from a to public POV.

In a school or work place you are very likely to know who the good and bad guys are.

Example
You see two co-workers and the x-coworker that was fired last week.

You run out of the class room and see three of your teacher buddies pointing guns and someone you've never seen before.

mcub wrote:In a school or work place you are very likely to know who the good and bad guys are.

In some cases. But many schools now have thousands of students and hundreds of staff members.

- Jim

I got in on this thread late (and it's been ages, no... too long... since I've dropped by TCHL Forum), but as my signature has always indicated it's pretty easy to see where I stand on this issue. Just thought I would add my 2c's.

OK, now that I stimulated this thread into some really good discussion by playing 's advocate, I have to say I really agree with you guys. And, we have provided some good fodder for our fellow forum-mates to build their counter conversations with those who say it is a problem.

We all know that in the split seconds that something goes down, it is usually WELL over before anyone arrives, even if they were right around the corner. Being able to protect yourself and others by being armed is the only way someone can be stopped before they do harm, or at least further harm.

Could the situation I mentioned happen? Yes, but it would be unlikely and worth the risk.

Thanks for the active feedback and viewpoints!!

Keith B wrote:I am an officer responding to a call of, or just heard gunshots down the mall where I am working off-duty security. I immediately head to the scene, only to see 6 people with guns drawn. I have no idea who ANY of them are. I now have to take time to sort out who are the BG's and who aren't. The BG can easily identify me from my uniform. If there is only one gun displayed, and they are waving it around, it is a lot easier and shorter time for me to make the call on their intentions and potentially get drawn down on the subject vs. sorting through the others and maybe not picking out the right one.

So are you arguing to take away CHL altogether, or is there something special about the school that makes your scenario that much tougher?

In my humble opinion, if CHLs were allowed to carry in schools, there would be no shooting when you arrived on scene.

There just is no logic that I can conceive of that would make a school any different than the rest of the world as a place to allow CHL to carry. In fact, its prior history as a slaughterhouse for our young make it tops on my list of places CHL should be allowed to carry.

GlockenHammer wrote:

Keith B wrote:I am an officer responding to a call of, or just heard gunshots down the mall where I am working off-duty security. I immediately head to the scene, only to see 6 people with guns drawn. I have no idea who ANY of them are. I now have to take time to sort out who are the BG's and who aren't. The BG can easily identify me from my uniform. If there is only one gun displayed, and they are waving it around, it is a lot easier and shorter time for me to make the call on their intentions and potentially get drawn down on the subject vs. sorting through the others and maybe not picking out the right one.

So are you arguing to take away CHL altogether, or is there something special about the school that makes your scenario that much tougher?

In my humble opinion, if CHLs were allowed to carry in schools, there would be no shooting when you arrived on scene.

There just is no logic that I can conceive of that would make a school any different than the rest of the world as a place to allow CHL to carry. In fact, its prior history as a slaughterhouse for our young make it tops on my list of places CHL should be allowed to carry.

Venus Pax wrote:I hope she wins and sets a precedence for all states.

precedent

I hope so too.

AEA wrote:

Venus Pax wrote:I hope she wins and sets a precedence for all states.

precedent

I hope so too.

Sorry, but it's a state issue settled in state court. It has no weight in other states.

- Jim

Keith B wrote:
I am an officer responding to a call of, or just heard gunshots down the mall where I am working off-duty security. I immediately head to the scene, only to see 6 people with guns drawn. I have no idea who ANY of them are. I now have to take time to sort out who are the BG's and who aren't. The BG can easily identify me from my uniform. If there is only one gun displayed, and they are waving it around, it is a lot easier and shorter time for me to make the call on their intentions and potentially get drawn down on the subject vs. sorting through the others and maybe not picking out the right one.

Then by all means lets limit the carry of OFF DUTY LEO as well. Since the only way you can tell a good guy from a bad guy is a uniform, you should be required to wear a police uniform when carrying a firearm.

Also, we then need to limit the sale of blue dress shirts, and dress pants to qualified purchasers.

seamusTX wrote:

AEA wrote:

Venus Pax wrote:I hope she wins and sets a precedence for all states.

precedent

I hope so too.

Sorry, but it's a state issue settled in state court. It has no weight in other states.

- Jim

Same was true of Florida's "Caslte Doctrine".