As you might have expected, we’re going to touch on the recent tragic events in Aurora, CO. There’s not much we can offer beyond prayers and condolences; anything else would be platitudes or (even worse) might smack of exploitation. That said, the victims deserve our regard and our remembrance. I’m fairly certain most of the readership here would agree that we have a duty to try and prevent such events in the future as well.

Though frankly I don’t see any way to prevent them…just to end them before too much tragedy is done.

There is a lot of heated commentary and debate going on out there and it won’t go away anytime soon. Most of it has to do with gun control. We need more of it, we need less of it, high capacity magazines spell doom to the common man, etc. etc. Some of it is intelligent commentary (just having a concealed weapon is insufficient; proper training and preparation is vital) to the conspiracy/ridiculous (the shooter was trained and funded by a secret UN-backed or BATF-administered cabal needing a convenient massacre) to the inane (Sen. Feinstein, D-California, assures us that 1 in 5 police officers is killed by an assault weapon).

We’re interested in commentary and discussion, not hyperbole and ridiculosity. Please post intelligently and keep it pertinent.

We’ll start with this piece written by Travis Haley of Haley Strategic.

The original title: Thoughts for tonight

Travis Haley, Haley Strategic Partners

Fact:
If a criminal is willing to commit a crime, then they are willing to commit a crime to acquire a weapon to act that crime out. So if the Gov’t takes away the responsible armed citizen rights to carry and or own a firearm then the Gov’t is only stripping us from our protective rights and allowing the criminal to continue to act as usual.

Fact:
The majority of concealed carry and open carry armed citizens are a liability. Just because you go through a 1 day course doesn’t not mean that you can problem solve an armored active shooter in a never expected, dark, tear gassed disruptive environment with screaming people while stepping over dead bodies. You must understand advanced applications under stress. Just like a pilot graduating flight school doesn’t mean he’s ready to jump into air to air combat.

Fact:
The second amendment was created to facilitate the right to life. NO man, law, or opinion should ever infringe on the natural right to defends one’s self, family, or someone in society who’s life is being threatened.

Fact:
If you stand for the the Far Left or Far Rights opinion on gun control, then yes… you have an opinion too.

Fact:
When politicians take an anti-Second Amendment stance, we seriously need to wonder about their motives.

Fact:
When American citizens take an anti-Second Amendment stance, we seriously need to wonder about their status of “American”

Fact:
The Second Amendment does not grant us this right. This right already existed. The Second Amendment merely prevents the government from infringing on it.

Fact: There is a Scumbag criminal out there right now about to break into someones home in the middle of the night and hurt or kill someone. If you take away the Second Amendment then… the scumbag is still going to break into someones home in the middle of the night and hurt or kill someone.

Fact:
I can have my neighbors call 911 and tell dispatch: “A man just shot and killed everyone in my neighbors house and ran out the front door” or I can call 911 and tell dispatch: “A man just broke into my house and presented a lethal threat to my family and I killed him as he came through my front door.”

Fact:
When a gun is sitting on a table it is only a gun sitting on a table… When a killer picks it up, it’s only a tool that the killer picks up. When the killer shoots an innocent with the tool everyone forgets about the killer and blames the tool.

Fact:
Switzerland virtually has no crime… hmmm

Fact:
The spark which ignited the American Revolution was caused by the British attempt to confiscate the firearms of the colonists.

HS6

{ 123 comments… read them below or add one }

Pete Sheppard July 23, 2012 at 4:18 am

Good points, except for this "…Fact:
The majority of concealed carry and open carry armed citizens are a liability."
Feinstein couldn't have said it better–so why not pass laws requiring a CCP holder to be trained to SEAL Team 6 levels? The fact is, most CC-ers are indeed proficient to deal with the threats they will face.
Besides this 'blooper', I fully agree and endorse Mr Haley's comments.
Thanks!!

Reply

JPate July 23, 2012 at 4:29 am

I disagree. Having trained law enforcement officers in firearms tactics for the past 15 years, to include annual quals as well as separate practical courses of fire including low light, active shooter, and during movement, training that most civilians will never engage in due to availability and cost, even law enforcement officers suck at shooting under stress. I would venture to guess hat a very small percentage of CCW holders seek any formal training. They may shoot at he range, but no formal stress inoculation training. No one ever really knows what hey will do, until called on to do it.

Reply

Dip July 23, 2012 at 4:37 am

"Fact:
When American citizens take an anti-Second Amendment stance, we seriously need to wonder about their status of “American”"
I just want to point out that there are many people who don't get exposed to firearms in childhood. Ask many in the shooting community and I think a lot will have been lifelong shooters. I try to give some slack to people (not politicians) who have an anti-gun opinion but have no experience with firearms; if I come across as a calm and collected gun-owner, I feel I do more for the community. It's easy to fear dogs if you've never spent time around dogs, but have been exposed to images of scary dogs your whole life.
I'd change the above quote to read "…their status (as) "Critical Thinker". Just my .02

Reply

Jim Greer July 23, 2012 at 4:52 am

I am immediately suspicious of any writer who structures an argument by stating opinions as "fact." That approach dissuades rebuttal with it's implied "how do you argue with me, those are facts." Travis makes some excellent points – his observation that motivated criminals will acquire the means for carrying out their plans is irrefutable. Nevertheless, the Second Amendment is a starting point, not a trump card. A mature, thoughtful discussion about how to keep weapons out of the hands of men like Holmes is past due. For example, what made the shooting center reject his application? If a common sense assessment by experienced gun handlers led to that conclusion, maybe all arms purchases should include a face to face encounter. I don't believe the Founders would suggest that as intrusive.

Reply

Pete Sheppard July 23, 2012 at 5:03 am

To JPate: As a private citizen, I see an 'elitist' mindset at work. The more highly trained one is, the easier it is to look at 'less trained/skilled' people with disdain. The fact is, though, that 'barely-trained' CCL holders have defended themselves very well, and there have been tragedies where 'highly-trained' professionals have totally screwed up.
This has been an argument against CCW; "…can you imagine the carnage if someone had a concealed weapon in there!?"
I am NOT against training/practice, but there are extremes. Just as there are people who buy a gun and think its a magic wand or a hunting license, there are some whose obsessive training has messed with their heads. For those whose professions require them to seek out the bad guys, yes train their boots off! Just don't offer the anti's a blank check to prevent private citizens of limited means like myself from having the means to protect myself.

Reply

FormerSFMedic July 23, 2012 at 5:24 am

I absolutely disagree as well. I have seen, known, and trained responsible armed citizens, LEO's, and Military Troops for many years that were ill prepared and ill advised on weapons and tactics. There is SO MUCH more than just being able to hit a target at the range. Travis is NOT the kind of guy to have an elitist mindset. I know Travis personally and Travis is the LAST guy to treat people with kind of disrespect or condescending attitude. The statement he makes about the majority of gun owner being a liability is true for sure. I have trained hundreds (if not thousands) and I have only met a small percentage that were truly proficient in the trade craft of shooting on Day 1 of a shooting course. I would be open to your thoughts on the subject. I'm not trying to be disrespectful to anyone but I don't see the truth any other way.

Reply

David Reeder July 23, 2012 at 3:53 pm

I was going to reply, but FormerSFMedic and Pete beat me to it. It's not elitist, it's realistic. We're not undercutting the 2nd Amendment by candidly recognizing that most CCW shooters are woefully unprepared to prevail in a critical incident like this, any more than we're denigrating the cops and the military by admitting that a lot of them are insufficiently prepared either. Now, having said that, I would much rather have the option of trying to end the threat than having to try and stop it with foul language and a time-out while I go get my pistol.

I've seen CCW carriers who could barely point the open end of the gun downrange and I have literally seen them load bullets in the magazine backwards. I've also gone up against civilians with no background in friendly competition on the range and been utterly humiliated. Neither of those things prove that CCW carriers are always going to be an asset in a fight any more than they prove that they're all going to be a liability. It's just reality.

Reply

Anonymous July 23, 2012 at 7:02 am

Hey Pete,
You know I have to agree and disagree. I too have seen a very small percentage of highly trained individuals act in the way you describe. That is a very small percentage, mainly individuals who have all the training in the world, titles to go with their names, BUT no real world experience to go with their training. EVERY individual I have had the honor to know who has had tons of training AND real world experience have been very very professional to all they came into contact with. NO EXCEPTIONS – that has been MY experience.
I for one do not think Travis falls into your category. I have never met the guy, nor have I taken any of his classes as of this posting, BUT I respect Travis, I respect Glenno and everyone else here who has posted or has served in one capacity or the other, or sometimes both.
Guys, as I have stated several times on this very thread, we really need to stand together, have opinions our own opinions in a respectful way. Let's not give the left or right the impression that we have in-house issues or problems. We will have those obviously, but lets not advertise them. We are under attack from all sides and I am sure the recent events in CO will only make the problems worse for all of us.
The one thing I stress in my training classes is this sheeple mindset that we all live in a utopia. Bad things happen to good people. Good people need to stand up and STOP being sheeple and get some training and experience in their Constitutional rights. There have been several incidents here in Utah in the past 5 to 10 years where a CFP holder did STOP a bad situation from getting worse for good people. That is what this is all about, as I am sure we all could agree on.

Reply

Pete Sheppard July 23, 2012 at 5:37 am

I too will strive to avoid rancor; we are all on the same side and we'd sure better stick together! In that, there is room for an honest (and courteous) difference in perspective.
Our differing backgrounds will inevitably affect those perspective. I freely admit I couldn't run the streets of Fallujah with you guys, but when you see YOUR training as barely adequate for your missions, it's hard NOT to see anything else as totally unsatisfactory, even though the vast majority of us swim in far less dangerous waters.
One unescapable fact is that most of us do not have the time or resources to train at your level; we do the best we can with what we have available. The vast majority of the time, good situational awareness (Cond. Yellow) combined with the ability and mindset to USE an available weapon will allow us to prevail should the need arise.

Reply

j m July 23, 2012 at 5:46 am

I've had plenty of friends that grew up in the city and had no experience with firearms. Lacking any experience they were generally left with a negative view of them due to the media coverage of anything dealing with firearms.
I try to take as many as I can out too shoot and get some hands on experience, 99% of the time they're left with a positive view and are interested in purchasing something themselves.

Reply

Anonymous July 23, 2012 at 6:34 am

Not trying to defend Travis here, I think he is VERY capable of doing that by himself. I read his fact on the anti-second amendment as those who have been educated or given the information and STILL take the anti-second amendment stance. I have ran several classes where individuals who came to my class came with anti-second amendment opinions and after the class were converted to the second amendment. I am sure most if not all of us trainers have had similar experiences at one point or another, especially Travis himself.
AND, just to remind everyone, a divided house is a broken house. In these trying times of our society and world conditions, now is not the time to be bickering among ourselves, now is the time to stand STRONG together. Just my .02.

Reply

Jim Greer July 23, 2012 at 6:55 am

Anon

Briefly-my classmates and I in Knife and Fork school for Navy Reserve Officers stood at attention for fifteen minutes while a Lt. Commander chewed us up for even suggesting that post-training evals be offered anonymously. .02.

Among those of us in the gun wielding community who have different opinions, I, for one, believe that frank, respectful disagreement is not just warranted, it is a duty. Travis made several valid points, albeit using an awkward rhetorical vehicle. I disagree with him (and others) in several respects. The broader discussion here about training, weapons handling skills and the mindset to win a gun fight evidences the "fact" that there is disagreement among us. Resolving it takes discussion, not silent assent to the loudest voice.

Reply

Anonymous July 23, 2012 at 7:52 am

I do agree with you there.

Reply

Glenno July 23, 2012 at 6:02 am

Travis, you need to check your facts before you assert them. You also need to go back to school and learn the difference between an opinion and a fact. You are entltled to your opinion, but it is dishonest to claim your opinions are fact.

Just because someone disagrees with you does not make them a suspect. You dishonor the very freedoms that others have fought for by asserting otherwise. You obviously have been provided with a privileged position by being permitted to initiate this discussion. Please do not abuse that position or disrespect the rest of us by engaging in sophistry and jingoism. It is unbecoming of your privileged position and does not advance either the debate or the capacity of others to come to terms with this horrendous event.

And before you accuse me of being a lefty, pinko, commie or pacifist, note two things. I have worn both a military uniform and a police uniform and have served my community and my country over four decades. I come from a mixed military and police family that have serves for four generations and my son continues to serve in uniform. I have earned my right to voice a different opinion and to expect that right to be respected, whether you agree with it or not.

Reply

Anonymous July 23, 2012 at 6:42 am

Glenno,
You are very right about your right to voice your opinions. BUT, your attitude towards a very professional trainer who is well respected within his community is was bites me. There are ways of voicing your opinion in a respectful way and still get your opinion out and heard. You do not have any more experience than Travis and I would venture to say his experience in both of the fields you mentioned are heads and tails above yours.
I too, have served many years on the mean streets of America, I am a law enforcement brat, so to speak. I in no way mean to take your opinion away, just temper it with a little respect towards someone who is a bit more knowledgeable and capable than ourselves. In no way do I mean bow down to him, as some might read into my post, just offer a little respect. Again, we are all on the same side here, the last thing we need at this critical junction of time is division within our own house.
Glenno, thank you for your time and sevice, all best to you and yours.

Reply

Glenno July 23, 2012 at 7:35 am

My attitude comes from opinions being presented as fact. I respect your opinion, even though you appear not to respect mine. You know nothing of my background, but you automatically assume that Travis is more qualified to hold an opinion than I am. We are all entitled to hold an opinion. It is a freedom many of us have fought for.

As to whether Travis' opinion is more worthy than mine (or yours), neither Travis nor I (nor you) were present in the Century Cinema, therefore our opinions are merely that -opinions based on speculation derived from a very thin fact set. While ever Travis, you, or any other person expresses an opinion, that is your right. I may not agree with it, but I will respect it. But as soon as Travis, you or any other person presents that opinion as fact, I will call you on it. Travis presented a number of his personal opinions as "Fact" and in doing so only diminished his personal standing because many of us are not fools.

You venture to say that Travis' experience in both military and policing fields exceeds mine, yet you know nothing of mine and only what Travis publishes of his. Perhaps Travis does have more experience than i have. I dont know -so how on earth would you? Perhaps you need to think carefully when forming your opinions and even more carefully before expressing them, lest you present your opinions as ill-considered and yourself as a naieve for expressing them publicly.

As you highlight, Travis is a trainer. Those of us who train others are in a unique position of trust. Students are impressionable and therefore we trainers need to ensure that present fact as fact, analysis as analysis, and opinion as opinion. As soon as we blend one into the other, we run risks, not least to our own credibility. Travis may be an excellent trainer. But he has made a serious mistake in presenting his opinion as fact and deserves to know about it so he can avoid it in the future.

As to a house divided, you appear to be telling me that I need to fall into line with what you think. Sorry, but I think differently and I have earned the right to dissent. Besides, nothing you have said thus far leads me to conclude that there is merit in your position. All I have seen to this point is your resort to group pressure to conform. I do not respond to such pressure, particularly when I have no reason to believe that you are my peer, given your statement that you are "a law enforcement brat".

This is not a case of a house divided. If I were arguing that the Holmes' of the world ought to be allowed to shoot whomever they like, then you might be able to claim divided house. I am simply arguing that we should stick to the facts and leave the politics, jingoism, emotion (and group pressure to conform) out of what should a discussion aimed at exploring the problem and trying to find some answers.

If you really were thankful for my service, you would have recognised my right to my opinion and would not have insulted and belittled that service. I therefore do not thank you for your insincerity.

Reply

Anonymous July 23, 2012 at 8:03 am

What a ******** you are. Pinheads like you are those I choose not to enter discussions with. THE END.

Reply

Glenno July 23, 2012 at 8:22 am

As you wish.

carl July 23, 2012 at 10:15 am

Well you apparently got the "BRAT" part right.

jumper July 23, 2012 at 7:18 am

Glenno, your combative attitude (which is a touch too defensive, the article wasn't a personal attack) makes everyone dismiss you out of hand. You did nothing to forward your point of view. A healthy debate is useful, but writing such a polarizing post only backs up Travis's point of view.

Reply

FormerSFMedic July 23, 2012 at 7:31 am

I'm just wondering what Glenno is referring to. I went through the list several times and find very little cause to think that anything Travis said was not fact. Glenno, you made an argument without making an argument! Not only that, but you talked about "unbecoming" of his privalaged position. Tell me how stating your long background is NOT unbecoming of YOUR privlaged position?.?. One could argue that you were even bragging about your "privlaged" position. One could further argue that your comments were a ploy to say, " look at me, I'm just as acceptable as this guy". Maybe a less abrasive tone would have gotten your point across better?

Reply

Jim Greer July 23, 2012 at 7:54 am

So, Glenno has style points deducted? He did his eight second ride but the judges thought the bull wasn't lively enough? What? Really, anyone wading in here, especially anyone enjoying a site like KitUp! has got to have thicker skin than that. Travis oversells his position and anyone who thinks that can add whatever energy they want to their argument, short of dropping F-bombs like clover. Hitch up your big boy pants, sir, and tell me how Travis is right. Glenno has a right to argue his position the way he wants, just like you.

Reply

FormerSFMedic July 23, 2012 at 8:51 am

Oversell? I'm not sure I follow.

That's pretty much all I got from that. Bull riding? What is going on with kitup?!

Reply

Jim Greer July 23, 2012 at 9:10 am

Sir – go reread your comments about taking things literally and apply them to mine. Travis oversold his points. Glenno called him out. You objected to Glenno's tone and I suggested you left your big boy pants at the dry cleaner. Now, you are totally confused. I think that catches us up.

But while I have you here – if you were truly an SF medic thank you for your service, whether you want my thanks or not. We may be fighting here, but being able to do it frankly without worrying about that midnight knock on my door was bought and paid for by people like you and I am grateful.

Glenno July 23, 2012 at 9:13 am

Sorry guys. There was some sarcasm and yes, I was taking Travis literally, because he was presenting his opinions are facts and there are those who will accept them as such. ASI is a touchy subject because my son is currently a member of a police tactical team that, amongst other things, first-responds to ASI incidents. We were only discussing the Century Cinema incident only an hour ago by phone as he headed off to work.

If you can forgive me my rough rider approach, I would like to inject something new into the discussion. Consider this. Man gets gun (or guns). Man goes to some public place where there are lots of people. Man shots as many as he can. Sometimes man then shoots himself. Sometimes man commits suicide by cop. Sometimes man just gives up to the police.

I say 'man', because I cannot recall a woman ever doing anything similar. This is a point worth pondering. What i have described is a modus operandi that has worked for decades. The first such man was doing something original. Every man there after has been a copy cat criminal! Does it make a difference to how to analyse the crime and he contributing issues if you attach the 'copy cat' label to it? Might it allow you to see the motivations in a different light? What does it contribute and what does it detract?

I belive this is worth kicking around. What do you think?

Jim Greer July 23, 2012 at 9:40 am

To Glenno – a safe day to your son. We have three major shopping centers in our jurisdiction, one in my sector. I understand your emphasis on the what ifs, especially "What if the guy wearing the kevlar is my son?" To suggest a follow on to your question – only military members seem so versed in the past that they can conjure it up as a basis for how they handle real-life situations. Those of us in LE with real street responsibilities a little less so, but I'd venture to say we are keeping up. Bad guys…often seem to live in a world of illusion. Their reality – real enough to them – is sometimes made up of a preoccupation with a fictional character that is real to them. Holmes apparently has some concept of "Joker" being something other than an actor on a screen. In my experience, we do a lousy job of anticipating not just the venue, but the outlier individuals who might pick up a weapon and start spraying. Lots of reasons for this, but the first is that policing a free society comes with rules designed to recognize the inalienable right to freedom. That always puts us below the curve. In my opinion we don't have to stay there, but that's just me talking. God bless your son, sir, and keep him safe.

Glenno July 23, 2012 at 8:21 am

Read my earlier response to Anonymous. As to my "long background", I was not bragging, simply qualifying my right to express dissent. To address your concerns about my 'non-argument', I have selected some of Travis' non-facts and have provided comments. Please don't take my word for any of it. Do own research. You owe it to yourself to be as well informed as you can be. Knowledge is the sharpest weapon you can ever wield I either attack or defense.

Fact:
The second amendment was created to facilitate the right to life. NO man, law, or opinion should ever infringe on the natural right to defends one’s self, family, or someone in society who’s life is being threatened.

Not according to the history books I have read. It is there because the founding fathers wanted to ensure that no one (the British included) could ever deprive citizens of the right to bear arms in defense of their homeland.

Fact:
If you stand for the the Far Left or Far Rights opinion on gun control, then yes… you have an opinion too.

This is a Travis opinion. The fact hat others might gree with it does not turn it into fact. There are those who are political moderates who hold opinions on gun control. Not all those in favor of gun control occupy either the far left or the for right. The Commissioner of the Mass. state Police might arguably be a current example in the media.

Fact:
When politicians take an anti-Second Amendment stance, we seriously need to wonder about their motives.

This is another Travis opinion. That he presents it as fact concerns me. That you don't recognize the difference ought to concern you!

Fact:
When American citizens take an anti-Second Amendment stance, we seriously need to wonder about their status of “American”

Again. This is a Travis opinion. That he presents it as fact concerns me. Again, that you don't recognize the difference ought to concern you

Fact: There is a Scumbag criminal out there right now about to break into someones home in the middle of the night and hurt or kill someone. If you take away the Second Amendment then… the scumbag is still going to break into someones home in the middle of the night and hurt or kill someone.

This is sophistry. If the criminal is breaking into someone's home, he is either too stupid to have thought about the risk of confronting an armed occupant or he doesn't care because he is driven by some greater imperative, such as how to get the money for his next drug buy. Having a gun doesn't stop the break in. It gives you a way to respond, but your life is still going to change forever when you shoot him. Travis presents a very complex and stressful situation as simple and benign. It leaves me to wonder about not just the message, but the messenger.

Fact:
When a gun is sitting on a table it is only a gun sitting on a table… When a killer picks it up, it’s only a tool that the killer picks up. When the killer shoots an innocent with the tool everyone forgets about the killer and blames the tool.

Those of us who have investigated such an incident usually ask, "Why was the gun left in such circumstances where it could be used to take a life?". As someone said earlier, most people with handguns simply don't have the training, practice or experience to deal with armed confrontations.

Fact:
Switzerland virtually has no crime… hmmm

What does this mean? It is not a "fact". I'm not sure what it is, other than misleading. Interestingly, members of the Swiss military reserve (Switzerland used to have conscription -not sure if it still does) used to take their assault rifles home with them, so they could start waging war from home if the country was evr attacked. (It seems that the Swiss are more concerned about protecting their homes from foreign invaders than Americans are). I'm not sure if it is still the case, but it ought to make you question the whole basis for Travis' assertion. Could it be that Swtzerland and the USA have more differences than merely their crime stats? If conscription still exists, then the Swiss have a far higher proportion of he adult population who have been psychologically screened, been subjected to military discipline and who are trained in the responsible use of military weapons than does the USA.

Fact:
The spark which ignited the American Revolution was caused by the British attempt to confiscate the firearms of the colonists.

The original spark was somewhat more complex than that. Travis forgets a certain Tea Party for a start. Which reminds me of an old saying, "There was one a simple answer to a complex problem. But it was wrong!

As to my tone, everyone is different. Look past the tone to the content. Look past the messenger to the message.

Reply

Jim Greer July 23, 2012 at 8:41 am

Since this site has no "like" button I have to "voice" agreement with Glenno. Your point by point analysis is an excellent reply to Travis' thread. As for your tone…. My previous statement stands. This is a discussion for grown ups with thick skin. There is important work to be done.

Reply

FormerSFMedic July 23, 2012 at 8:48 am

Wow! I don't even know what to say to that. I could certainly go back over everything but there wouldn't be any point. One only has to read your comments and understand that you are either being sarcastic (most likely) and avoiding or don't care to answer my curiosity about your argument OR you really are taking Travis' words out of context and/or in the literal. Come on, throw me a bone, you really think that Travis is speaking LITERALLY? There is no way! Your vocabulary suggests that your intelligence level is better than that. Remember, we have NO context OR tone here, you've got to tell us when your being sarcastic.

Reply

HalP July 23, 2012 at 1:31 pm

@Glenno.
Fact 1 – "to keep and bear arms" for defense of the homeland IS defense of the home as well. What you're arguing is essentially that they established the 2nd Amendment so that you can protect the castle walls but not the keep – which is stupid. Agree?
Fact 2 – The fact that you are a human being means you have an opinion on gun control.
Fact 3 – We always need to examine and investigate a politicians motives. That way we know who to elect and not-elect. Are they receiving $$$ for choosing a side and making a public statement? heck yeah that should be questioned
Fact 4 – The right to keep and bear arms is an inherent one – anyone who doesn't think so is either ignorant or stupid, or have selfish/harmful motives – which would contrast with the Liberty-focused American idealogy
Fact 5 – Fact is, crime will always happen. Humanity is tainted with evil and we live in a broken, fallen world. So don't argue for the sake of arguing. It ****** people off.
Fact 6 – a piece of machinery is harmless unless influence by an outside force. An airplane is harmless unless humans or gravity is in control of it. It doesn't matter WHY the gun is on the table, it's the user you need to worry about.what YOU do with the gun, when YOU use it, where YOU use it, when YOU use it, how YOU use it, and why YOU use it. So yes, investigate, but again it's the user, not the gun, you need to be worried about. If you're chasing an armed criminal, and then discover that his gun is laying in the room adjacent to you, are you afraid of it? of course not. But if you know the criminal is in the adjacent room, armed or not, a (hopefully) healthy dose of fear is in you.
Fact 7 – Switzerland has virtually no crime. Yes, it can be attributed to more than just number of guns in every civilians household. But it IS a factor you can't logically exclude, now that you're taking the original comment to the next level.
Fact 8 – The spark that ignited our Revolution was caused by the British attempt to take weapons from the colonists. Yes, there was an ongoing series of events and attitudes leading up to Lexington and Concord but when and where did the friggin war start? Lexington and Concord when the Brits were in en route to confiscate arms from the colonists.

Reply

crackedlenses July 23, 2012 at 2:45 pm

Beautifully done. +100

TYH July 23, 2012 at 5:04 pm

I agree with almost everything Travis has said. But, as Glenno points out, what Travis offers are opinions not facts. Sorry. The only fact that I see is that the list of points made by Travis are opinions, not facts. To call them facts flies in the face of all logic. It's as clear as night and day. For example, "one should check their blind spot when changing lanes." Yes, this is true. But it is an opinion. Not a fact. An opinion. Not a fact. No way no how.

Reply

Gerry Nance July 23, 2012 at 6:03 am

Fact: Most firearms training schools teach beyond basic firearm safety and concealed carry. The Firearms Training Associates (http://www.ftatv.com/) is run by police officers.

Reply

DGR July 23, 2012 at 6:15 am

Switzerland is not the same as the US. Comparing them to the US is discounting a thousand other reasons they have lower crime. Guns might have something to do with it, but they are not the only reason. They have differant income levels, differant employment rates, they make livings off of differant industries, they have differant levels of military service, they have a differant culture, they consume less energy, they have less babies, they have less of a class divide, they live longer, and the cost of living is much higher for the swiss. Saying guns are the only reason they dont have crime is down right foolish. Using that argument makes gun owners look like unedumacated fools who are incapable of basic level research. You cannot compare 2 population groups unless you statistically address the differances. Now if wanted to compare a thousand Swiss and a thousand Americans who met equal critera and made sure they accuratly represented the accurate ratio of gun owners in each county then compared them. Then he can start talking about theories, but the only fact in research is that there are no true facts.

Reply

klip July 23, 2012 at 8:10 pm

I think you read that incorrectly. Not a lot of people will argue the direct and exclusive causality between gun ownership and Switzerland and its low crime rate; rather a lot of people would argue that the two are related. The most important thing about low crime in Switzerland is that high gun ownership patently does NOT mean high crime.

I'm going to reiterate for emphasis:
(for anyone skimming through the comments)

HIGH GUN OWNERSHIP absolutely does NOT equate to HIGH CRIME.

Reply

jumper July 23, 2012 at 7:10 am

You do not know that to be a fact. As someone who has helped out time to time with a CC course, I would argue that very few people who get them are truely ready to use lethal force to defend themselves, and even fewer of them would have been able to do anything in a situation like we had in CO.

Reply

Travis July 23, 2012 at 9:30 am

Is there an original source for where Travis Haley posted this article originally? Or did he email it to David Reeder to post here?

Reply

Chance July 23, 2012 at 9:35 am

I have to agree with Travis that most concealed carry and open carry citizens are a liability. I fully acknowledge that I am in no way capable of performing in such dire circumstances, being a mediocre shot myself and having little formal training, but compared with some of the shooting I've seen during weapon permit renewals I might as well be a pistol champion.

In all fairness however, there are more than a few police officers who are liabilities as well. Qualifying with your weapon once or twice a year and never firing it otherwise is unlikely to keep your readiness high enough to act appropriately in this sort of situation.

Reply

RogerCopRabbit July 23, 2012 at 1:03 pm

Sure some cops are out to lunch. But compared to the average Joe CCW everyone has to go through an Academy(4-8 months) then your packing daily. I don't know anyone that doesn't draw at least 2-3 times daily on someone(I do live in California so maybe its the crime we have here). Qualifying quarterly and doing arrest techniques regularly always helps. Giving someone a CCW and telling them they can protect themselves is a joke. Although everyone should have the right to carry if properly trained.

Reply

carl July 23, 2012 at 1:37 pm

Only if properly trained? How about no one can ride a bike without officially approved defensive riding course. No one can drive without officially approved driving course, maybe no one can eat , or prepare meals without an officially recognized course in healthy food prep. We already have a class of people that believe that nonsense. They are called politicians. If i can not afford your $1,000.00 course; does that mean i am not allowed to protect my family. Or did you mean if i can not afford the course; i should not be allowed to have a family. Where do we draw the line once we start down that ice field.

Reply

David Reeder July 23, 2012 at 3:47 pm

Carl, I think you're taking this to an unnecessary extreme (albeit not without cause). In my opinion (and mine only) it's not a question of legislating some sort of mandatory training, or denying anyone's 2nd Amendment rights. However, let's be realistic about the level of minimum training required for a CCW and how that relates to prevailing in an armed encounter. In many states you can show up, sign a paper, point the gun at the paper and pull the trigger. As long as the majority of the bullets print in the paper or the berm downrange, you pass. That's not an exaggeration. Surely you can agree that it would behoove responsible gun owners to seek out as much training as they can attain and/or realistically afford. Keep in mind I'm an ardent supporter of the 2nd Amendment and have been diligently trying to get all my friends who aren't LEOs to not only get their CCWs but to source additional training or range time. No one is saying you have to take a $1,000 course or you're not allowed to protect your family. What I am saying, at least, is that a responsible gun owner who is serious about protecting his family in public has an obligation to make sure he's prepared for a critical incident. Those of us that do carry a weapon in public must at least keep the relative skill set and stress inoculation of other shooters in mind as much as we monitor our own. I personally would hate to live with throwing an airball that hit Aunt Pootie, or God forbid a kid, while trying to respond to some ******* shooting up the theater or the restaurant. I think that we, as a community, should do everything we can to push our peers towards preparation and training.

Reply

carl July 23, 2012 at 6:29 pm

David; you are right i was trying to be a bit over dramatic. It was the semantics i was most concerned with. His statement was ;everyone should have the right to carry for self defense "IF" properly trained. That is a dangerous statement not only as it concerns the protection of the constitution, but also can; and if given the chance; will be used by anti gun folk and big government nanny state pushers as well. This whole conversation makes me wonder how my grandfather was able to survive a dance hall shootout that left 3 bad guys dead or how my untrained uneducated father was able to disarm a shotgun wielding attacker with just a knife. How was it all the other people before CCW permits and training were available were able to defend themselves,or how the American revolution ever got off the ground with all those untrained civilians fighting the worlds greatest army at the time.

carl July 23, 2012 at 6:34 pm

David; you are right i was trying to be a bit over dramatic. It was the semantics i was most concerned with. His statement was ;everyone should have the right to carry for self defense "IF" properly trained. That is a dangerous statement not only as it concerns the protection of the constitution, but also can; and if given the chance; will be used by anti gun folk and big government nanny state pushers as well. This whole conversation makes me wonder how my grandfather was able to survive a dance hall shootout that left 3 bad guys dead or how my untrained uneducated father was able to disarm a shotgun wielding attacker with just a knife. How was it all the other people before CCW permits and training were available were able to defend themselves,or how the American revolution ever got off the ground with all those untrained civilians fighting the worlds greatest army at the time.
My post was pointing out the slippery slope we start down once we start placing restrictions and/or requirements to allow people to utilize their rights. If you think we can allow the requirement of proper training before CC, and not have it completely screwed up to where only Congressmen can carry, you are living in a sterile bubble. Any other activity then becomes a target if it poses any danger whatsoever.

Sam S July 23, 2012 at 9:40 am

I take exception to 2 of Travis' points. First of all just because I don't have your training and skill doesn't make me a liability. That being said, I think most of us would agree that there should be a standard of training that should be required of all CC personnel. (Just how much training is certainly a matter for debate. Some would say there is never enough, and some would argue otherwise.) Second, coming from California I know a lot of "Americans" who question the 2A. I find that these misguided individuals love this country, love their fellow Americans, and want to protect themselves and their families from harm. No good comes from questioning their motives or status as an American. These people need to be educated and enlightened. In short, they need training in citizenship and not disdain for their brainwashing.

Reply

Glenno July 23, 2012 at 10:01 am

To Jim Greer. Thank you sir. Your kind thought are much appreciated. God bless you and yours.

Reply

carl July 23, 2012 at 10:03 am

You misread his comment. Most CC-ers would collapse in the situation he mentioned; the Colorado shooting. But most CC-rs plan and train for the most common self defense situation; the 3,3,3, confrontation. No one can effectively train to be prepared for all situations. If we could we would not need so many differing military and/or police units. So although i agree with Mr. Haley, if i find myself in a dark smoke filled gaseous theater with an armed mad man, i hope to be one of dozens of CC-ers in attendance.

Reply

carl July 23, 2012 at 10:27 am

I have to firmly agree on one fact; if a politician takes a position on anything; you need to question his/her motives.

Reply

Lance July 23, 2012 at 11:13 am

Some common sense ideas. Fact is your job has nothing to do with firearms skills. I know cops and LE who can barely hit the target in front of him 5ft away. Overall no law will stop acts of evil.

Reply

Jim Greer July 23, 2012 at 11:56 am

I suppose you're talking about us, Lance. Sure, sure. Right up to the time the alert tone goes off and someone is tear-assing through a school or a mall where your kids study or work. Then you'd best hope one of us can hit something. And come on, dude. The two yard line is one hand close combat. Gimme some love, here. At least make it the five YARD line.

Reply

carl July 23, 2012 at 11:52 am

I think the term "liability" may be the problem with the statement in question.
The CC-r may not be my perfect world ideal of a backup, but as long as he/she knows i am there and i am not the perp, i can use that as an advantage to the mission.

Reply

Pete Sheppard July 23, 2012 at 1:57 pm

As far as the 'qualifications' of private citizens to arm themselves (and carry concealed); the last time I read, the number of times citizens successfully defended themselves with firearms was figured between 500,000 and close to 1,000,000 time a year. The number of actual cases I've read about in over 20 years of following 2A issues is just a handful.
A lot of *unqualified* somebodies are getting something right! Read "The Armed Citizen" in NRA publications and similar accounts elsewhere, and there are numerous accounts of citizens prevailing in situations as difficult as the theater in Aurora.
As stated by others, I agree a private citizen (LEOs are civilians, too; call them–with respect–public citizens) should get as much training as practical. In over 20 years of CC, I read a lot (hey, I'm here!), taken a couple of PD-sponsored training classes, but look forward to when I can make it to something like Mas Ayoob's training.
Last shot–here in AL, LEOs *like* people to be armed!

Reply

crackedlenses July 23, 2012 at 2:48 pm

An interesting read for this discussion is "Shooting Back" by Charl Van Wyke. Basically, it is about a South African vet who found himself in a massacre conducted by terrorists using assault rifles and handgrenades. Not quite the same as the Aurora shooting, but still pretty incredible odds for a CCW carrier…..

Reply

P389 July 23, 2012 at 3:34 pm

Unmentioned here is the revelation that the gun club in this area refused membership to the shooter after hearing his voice mail message.

Meanwhile, over at the "University Of Diversity" where our PHD candidate was in attendance, no one…NO ONE took any exception to his behavior at all!

So that means the "Gun nuts" and the "NRA types" did a better job of judging the mental state of this lunatic than did the highly educated academics at the University Of Diversity. In light of the fact this makes three individuals from "higher education"(…whatever that means)that have initiated mass murder, perhaps someone needs to ask about the environment at these places.

But no, it is better to beat the drum for a renewal of the liberal's cherished Assault Weapons Ban.

Reply

Jimney Cricket July 23, 2012 at 4:00 pm

Amazing, just simply amazing. Some of these comments I have read are pathetic. Did any of you think about what you were writing prior to typing away? People who conceal carry are liabilities? Noted! The day you high speed low drag super ninja combat super stars are laying on your back being beaten, me and my CCW will go the other way. Comments like the ones many of you have written to include Mr. Haley's, are exactly what the gun grabbers say. Only cops and military should have guns because they're so well trained and they're super heroes! I'm not sure about you guys, I shoot more in a month then a cop shoots in a year. I get the best training money will buy, not too mention the real world background of actually deploying weapons. Am I a high speed über super ninja like Mr. Haley, no. Of course it doesn't take a genius to pull a trigger and make the pointy thing hit the target. It's too bad, Haley Startegic lost a customer. I may be one but it's better to support those who support us.

Reply

bg July 23, 2012 at 4:19 pm

This. Sorry I am not a professional. SOME of us have JOBS that don't involve being professional ********.

Reply

bg July 23, 2012 at 4:20 pm

baadazzes

Reply

FormerSFMedic July 23, 2012 at 4:46 pm

I think you are missing the message. He said most, not everyone. He also never said that you have to be a professional LEO or SOCOM member. Travis is a good friend of mine and I will tell you that he believes that ANYONE can be and should be highly proficient in personal protection and armed defense regardless of profession and disposition. Another belief we both share is that the trained civilian is MUCH MORE proficient in weapons manipulation and marksmanship than the trained LEO or Military personnel. This is something I have said before RIGHT HERE on kitup. Travis also recently said that the civilian shooting community is far ahead of the military community when it comes to shooting. He mentioned that there were 14 year old civilians that can OUTSHOOT the very best Tier 1 operators in the military. I agree with him wholeheartedly.

I can find that interview for you if you really need proof of Whee his beliefs are at. I don't think it's necessary though. You should do some research before condemning a man for a single comment. If you knew more, you would know that your ideology is not shared by Travis. He believes that YOU (the civilian) has the opertunity to be a more proficient practitioner than any professional out there.

Reply

Glenno July 23, 2012 at 5:32 pm

Thank you for declaring your friendship with Travis. I respect and applaud your loyalty to your friend. I also respect your opinion and Travis' opinion. Perhaps it is an issue of semantics, but it is an important issue nonetheless.

I make some general observations about this debate. The strength with which one holds an opinion does not change the fact that it is an opinion. The strength of a democracy like the United States is its diversity of opinion and it's protection of the right to express opinion in the very document that underpins the country's existence – the Constitution. One cannot defend the right to bear arms but simultaneously reject the right to freedom of speech. Yet some here in this discussion seem to wish to differentiate between fundamental freedoms. I do not reject Travis' right to express his opinion. Indeed, there are some aspects of that opinion with which I find agreement. I simply challenge his characterization of that opinion as "Fact".

Perhaps I was simply to strong in my wording. For that you can call me opinionated. My wife certainly does, so you would be in good company.

Reply

William Crosby Prent July 23, 2012 at 5:01 pm

First of all, it is and has always been, obvious to most that there is a negative relationship between gun control and crime.

Secondly, even IF there was some possibility that gun control would have prevented something like the Aurora tragedy, my natural right to self defense is not trumped by your vague desire for incremental safety.

It is ALWAYS better to be free than safe.

Reply

Jim Greer July 23, 2012 at 5:22 pm

So William, if I may be so bold as to put words in your mouth – a reasonable response from someone of your point of view to a reasonable request to review gun laws for efficacy in this context is…"bummer." Nice.

Reply

John July 23, 2012 at 5:03 pm

I never had to fire a round to get my CCW in Virginia. I love the relaxed gun laws here, but wow, this is one I would definitely change. However, I do think that a CCW would help any situation like CO almost every time.

Reply

Jeff July 23, 2012 at 6:16 pm

I live in California, so I will never get a CCW, unfortunately. That is a shame, in my opinion; I'm a level-headed, serious, sober guy, the kind of person who I think could be trusted with a CCW. The fact is, I don't want one…but I resent the fact that my state makes it almost impossible to GET one. That means that if I am out and I meet with an armed person, it's either a cop or a criminal, no middle ground.
I would really like to see the process to get a CCW made so daunting that only the most motivated, law-abiding citizen would go though it. If the training cost a grand or more, if it took a few weeks over a year's time (and a refresher to requalify every year or so) and if it required that I show proficiency in a practicum…well, that's what I have to do with my Wilderness First Aid certification every couple of years. If part of the equation is that I can move or run a certain distance or carry another person up a flight of stairs, so be it, and if I can't, maybe I shouldn't be carrying. (And there should be waivers for people with special needs and who use wheelchairs or other tools)
We don't let old people drive if they are a danger to others in traffic and I think the same idea applies here. On the other hand, I don't like my state just saying 'nope, sorry, NOBODY gets to drive because someone could get hurt.' That's just absurd.

Reply

David Reeder July 23, 2012 at 9:22 pm

Well put. I wish I could argue you with you about it, but I can't. The level of inanity in our government is surpassed only by its fiscal inefficiency.

Reply

David Reeder July 23, 2012 at 9:26 pm

It was on the HSC Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/HaleyStrategic

Reply

David Reeder July 23, 2012 at 9:37 pm

That's not what's being said, at least in the comments I'm reading. No one is saying all CCW carriers are liabilities. What some of us are saying is the level of training and preparation is woefully inadequate in many cases. If you shoot more in a month than a cop does in the year, then you are to be applauded. I wish all of CCW carriers would put half that much effort into it. The fact of the matter is, however, you're in the minority. There are plenty of CCW carriers who shoot just enough to get their permit and then never do anything else to maintain (much less improve) their skills. Surely you are not taking the stance that you'd want such a shooter to be the one intervening in a chaotic environment if there was a more capable shooter present? Don't blow this out of proportion; you're not really reading what's being said. Also, you are obviously free to disagree with everyone here, but I wouldn't start questioning Haley's motives or philosophy. He'd be about the last person to claim to be a high speed über super ninja, and to say Haley Strategic lost a customer based on your interpretation of the article (as I read it) shows that you're apparently misinterpreting the point and definitely being unrealistic. Of course we should have CCW rights and support those who support us, but we also need to take an honest look at what's really going on. Concealed carry folks aren't any more competent and accurate across the board than all soldiers or all cops or all anything else (I think the article might have been better received if he'd said "MANY concealed carriers are liabilities" instead of making a general statement. That said, with regards to the commentary in this thread, I'd respectfully ask that you go back and reread much of what's being said.

Reply

CCW in Idaho July 23, 2012 at 9:44 pm

I think we are overlooking an important fact. That fact is this was a complex attack. Not only did the shooter choose a dark environment where the noise level is very high already, he used a less than lethal gas to confuse and cause even more panic than just the psychological effect of gunfire and people getting wounded or killed.

This would of been a daunting task even for the best trained LEO or SWAT personnel let alone a highly trained citizen who has a CCW. Imagine your a CCW holder, off duty LEO or home on leave soldier in the theater engrossed in the movie when all **** breaks loose.

Personally in this situation, the best one could hope for is to buy people time to get out of the exits. No heroism here just do what you can do to get people out and if you get a clear shot amidst the tear gas and chaos, then take it. How many people have tried to shoot a target that is or could move in the dark under the influence of tear gas. Very difficult and not something even law enforcement train for on a regular basis.

To summarize, if you dont' have a plan then you have planned to fail. I have to believe anything in this case would be better than doing nothing. I personally believe I will be sitting much closer to a exit next time I am at the movies. Just saying.

Reply

Glenno July 23, 2012 at 11:12 pm

Excellent points. Lets take things one step further. Suppose two other armed people are present. One is an off duty cop. The other is a CCW. they don't know each other is there. The CCW opens up first in trying to deal with the active shooter. What does the cop do? Does he try to announce his prsence amidst the mayhem of lead and gas? Does he engage the original target? Remember, Holmes was wearing armour so it is unlikely that he is going to suffer terminal harm unless unlucky. Does the cop engage the target nearest to him who probably presents the most immediate threat? Suppose that target is the CCW. What you end up with is a potential three way fire fight where the bad guy had surprise, panic, a high powered long weapon, body armour and protection from the gas all on his side. Holmes was one clever SOB and here we all are trying to second guess what we might have done if we had been there. Your contribution is sage wisdom and I agree wholeheartedly with you selection of future movie seating arrangements.

Reply

carl July 24, 2012 at 6:51 am

As a participant in many impromptu, firefights in varying crappy conditions during 4 tours in Nam ;i would have grave concerns about a police officer that just witnessed a man enter the theater from the back with a rifle helmet and LBE, open fire on the crowd; and then could not tell where to direct his fire. Unless; and then only a slight unless; the cc-r was a lot more prepared than he and had to return fire directly past the LEO before the officer could take up his position and return fire himself. Even then it would not take but a split second to determine who the cc-r is firing at. And the there are times in battle, no matter the location, where your best or only plan of attach is to do something to direct enemy concentration upon yourself so others can get to safety or make an attach themselves.

Reply

Glenno July 25, 2012 at 7:47 am

Carl, you seem to have overlooked the reports that the cinema was in darkness and Holmes alleged used at least one gas grenade. In those circumstances and given the ensuing chaos and panic of the audience, one would need to be very sure of any shot before deciding to take it. Could it be that there was method in Holmes' madness in constructing the scenario as he did? He clearly wasn't interested in losing his own life, given his use of darkness, chemical distraction and disorientation, significant body armor and the fact that he surrendered to police without attempting to engage then in an exchange of fire.

Reply

xcalbr July 23, 2012 at 9:48 pm

Its nice to have somebody like Travis Haley on the side of sensible, law-abiding armed citizens.

I personally think his Facts are spot on.

Reply

carl July 24, 2012 at 6:56 am

I am glad to have him on our side as well; but what facts? He only listed opinion.

Reply

xcalbr July 24, 2012 at 11:03 am

read what I said. "His facts".

Reply

Glenno July 23, 2012 at 11:00 pm

Wasn't safety one of the points behind the right to bear arms? Safety from the use of force by external oppressors. If one loses the very right that one is seeking to protect, where does that leave society?

Reply

carl July 24, 2012 at 6:54 am

Amen!

Reply

Glenno July 23, 2012 at 11:36 pm

I don't have a problem with Haley's view that those who want to carry should be trained. Just as the right to free speech doesn't entitle you to yell fire in a crowd, so too the right to keep and bear arms must have reason attached to it. For example, should there be an age limit? Should there be a limit on ones honesty, ie no convicted felons. Should there be a limit around whether you can suffer a mental illness and still be permitted to keep and bear arms? If your answer is that there should be no limitations then you may need to accept he possibilit of 12year old drug dealer with fetal alcohol syndrome legally carrying a MAC10! What about a reality-altering-drug user who is studying a PhD in neuroscience?

Who do we trust to set such limits and to assess who is a fit and proper person to keep and bear arms? Anyone care to offer an answer? Should there be a psych test to weed out wack jobs? What about other tests, such as a knowledge of the law relating to the use of deadly force?

No, I am happy to see reasonable limits, such as training in both the use of the firearm and the law surrounding its use. No pass training, then no get CCW permit! I'm feeling safe just thinking about reasonable limits.

Reply

carl July 24, 2012 at 6:16 am

WHAT? How does yelling fire in a crowded building have any comparison to this subject or yours? And there are extreme restrictions to anybody including LEOs carrying a Mac10. This is exactly the wild eyed crazy type of rhetoric we do not need.
And is always the voice of unreason the gun grabbing, euro and u.s. political elites use to force their cowardice on liberty loving people. How about we just start utilizing the laws we have and make judgements for gun crimes swift , harsh, and definitive; and leave the law abiding citizen alone.

Reply

StuG July 24, 2012 at 11:29 pm

Requirements for acquiring a CCW vary by state; and, within some states, by county. In California it is almost impossible to get a CCW in some counties; but, easier in others. The state Department of Justice does set standards for training and requires a background check on all applicants including an interview with a peace officer. The training includes learning the law, shoot/don't shoot exercises, as well as demonstrating proficiency (qualifiying)with the weapons you plan to carry. One comes away from the training with full knowledge of their heavy responsibility when packing.

On the other extreme would be states like Arizona that have little or no requirements for concealed carry. And, that's scary.

Reply

David Solano July 24, 2012 at 2:29 am

Right on, Travis Haley. Your fellow 0321s in Afghanistan are with you on this one.

Reply

Cris July 24, 2012 at 4:21 am

Point of view from somebody that live in a nation that have CCW only theoreticaly.
I am Italian, I am a shooter, I own a glock 21 and an HK MR223 (Italian version of the MR556). but I cannot carry them for defense pourpose.. in Italy, the CCW is issued to very few citizen (some report say .5% of population, some report say 1%) and wanna know what it is funny? the Organized Crime (call it Mafia if you prefer or Camorra, 'ndrangheta, Sacra Corona Unita or whatever you prefer) has loads of weapon, automatic assault rifle, bazooka, C4 and whatever they want. Does ours draconian weapon laws prevent criminal being armed? No. Does this make the Italian Crime ratio better then those of some gun friendly state? Nope.
Guns are tools and, as tools, you need proper training to take advantage of them, what level of training should depend on various factor, including how much you can invest on that but also what you think it is the most common use you will be making of that given tool.
Hope my poor english doesn't offend anybody, take care you all
Ciao

Cris

Reply

Everett July 24, 2012 at 5:59 am

I would like to see more publicly taught safety and legal responsibility courses in are schools. Why does it seem like parents are failling the youth of this great nation today? Are we just going to sit by and let this nation down? Besides Boy Scouts, what organization can anyone name off the top of their head that teaches youth how to shoot responsibly? By the way they have taught values that are really needed today when so many people have lost their compass. In this world today it seems people don't know right from wrong. I was living in FL back in the 80's when it was stated that we lived in an open carry state and for a while crime dropped dramatically till they rushed a law thru, than back to business as usual. Back when I went to school I would have loved a gun club after school. We had rocket club which taught us not to point them at people but we had a misfire on a multi-engine Saturn that only cleared the launch pad then went horizontal chasing the crowd around. In shop class they made cannons, gun racks, worked on gun stocks, and maybe some things that should probably not been brought into school. They could trust us to respect others because most of us knew right from wrong because we had examples in our leaders. What happened to America?

Reply

carl July 24, 2012 at 6:34 am

I think you just answered your own question. We had leaders that tried to mostly do what was right for the country. They also took some responsibility for their actions and those they were intrusted with. We have come to be a nation of cowards, that want to always place the blame elsewhere, and not be responsible for anything but our next good time. And we want someone else to pay or that. Now the so called only do what will get them more power, prestige, or money. As a country we have turned our back on right and wrong. Only a fool thinks a mayor, governor,president, or trash collector that has lied to his wife and family for years while being unfaithful; is going to be a good leader and do right by the constituents he doesn't even know.

Reply

mrtorben July 24, 2012 at 6:01 am

The training required or available is a joke but nobody cares about that. It kills 45000 people per year. I am talking automobile related deaths. Nobody is screaming for better drivers-ed.
The CCW training required is not a whole lot better but expecting everyone to support better education which might make a dent in the less than 200 death per decade from mass-shootings……as much as I support education over prohibition, i don't see that happening.

Reply

carl July 24, 2012 at 6:20 am

Now you have done it! Just who do you think you are ruining a perfectly good argument with facts?

Reply

david marshall July 24, 2012 at 6:02 am

as a 71 year old veteran of 14 1/2 years in the Navy i guarante i am proficient with my weapon and would love a chance to put an end to a tragedy like the one that just occured. being unarmed at any time is not an acceptable option.

Reply

Tyler July 24, 2012 at 7:35 am

I haven't yet formulated a useful contribution to this discussion, but I am mildly surprised and quite pleased with the relatively civil and well constructed arguments and points presented. While I can't say it is without exception, I'm glad to see a thoughtful, constructive discussion on this. It is truly refreshing.

Reply

Dale July 24, 2012 at 8:20 am

If several CCW persons or even one had fired on the CO killer he would have ran. These type of killers do not expect any resistance. At the first sign of gun fire in his direction he would have left. CCW holders may not be Navy Seal qualified but, their being in a situation where they have to take action is ALWAYS better then being one of the sheep at a slaughter.

Reply

Jim Greer July 24, 2012 at 8:56 am

Dale, it is impossible to predict what someone will do in a deadly force situation unless they have been well trained, or have experienced it, or both. You don't know Holmes' mindset. Based on media accounts he was a nut, loner, Tea Party member and everything in between. Me, I'd have wanted my Glock in my hand when the shooting started but I've only been shot at once, they missed and I stood there like a fool going "***?" I have prepared mentally, shoot more often than I'm required to, invested in the tools necessary to win, gotten ten years worth of tactical training, but…. As some of the experienced operators have attested here until I've been under fire I don't know how far training and mental preperation will carry me the first time out. One of our SWAT cops put two in the ten ring of a guy shooting at him with a MAC, then ran up to him yelling "Why did you make me do that?!" Smart? Not really. Human nature? It was for him. Holmes might have stood his ground, just like the video games teach you. Nobody knows because that's not what happened.

Reply

StuG July 24, 2012 at 9:07 am

Generalizations and stereotypes aside, the fact is that, regardless of training, you never know how one will react in a "first time and rare" crisis situation. I observed this in Vietnam. Training and proficiency with a weapon is important. Understanding the law and consequences of using deadly force is paramount. Going amongst the public while packing a firearm incurs (or should incur) a heavy responsibility. Maybe this is why many, if not most, CCW holders do NOT pack on a regular basis. (According to a recent radio program it's a very small percentage who do.) I'm not interested in playing cop, cowboy or hero. It is, however, nice to have the option to legally carry when needed. Interestingly, apparently there were CCW holders present during the Gabriel Gifford shooting. For whatever reason, no one intervened. In the Arroyo Colorado incident given the heavily armored and armed shooter, it would have been suicide for the average CCW holder to intervene. It aint like the movies or the OK corral.

Reply

carl July 24, 2012 at 12:03 pm

Standing up in the face of danger to one self, to help others achieve safety,is not called suicide. It is called heroics. Some unarmed patrons displayed that and made the ultimate sacrifice. i do not mind the ideal of having to make that decision . But being forced to make that decision with no option of defending myself is the part i will not allow others to force on me, whether or not my expertise and/or training meets their standard.
I firmly believe that; "greater love hath no man; than he lay down his life for another." I just want the opportunity to attempt to take the bad guy with me.

Reply

Dan July 24, 2012 at 9:40 am

I think what is missing in a lot of these debates is that in these situations we are not suffering from a lack of training. We are literally dying from inaction. We like to argue about the potential collateral or taking a shot when this guy from all accounts spent 1-2 min shooting then walked out and sat at his car without impediment. I truly believe that any action, even untrained would have vastly improved the situations outcome. Look at the in flight reaction of passengers to odd behavior in flight after 9/11. People immediately began taking personal action that averted situations and likely would have ended 9/11 before it could happen if we didn’t have a passive wait for help culture. What our society needs to foster is the mentality of the right and "necessity" of self defense of ourselves and those around us. I believe this is what most sets the CC'er apart not just the level of training (which we can all agree should be sought to the best of everyone's ability). They have already decided that faced with a situation they will be prepared and will ACT.

Reply

john July 24, 2012 at 11:33 am

Gentlemen,we are discussing an issue that is symptomatic of the philosophical schism that is reflective of the opposing and splintered ideas of not only being a sheepdog in a crowd of sheep,but the direction that different people would like to see the country go…I know I am a newby,but I see a lot of thought going into this……discussion. I am old and fat and out of the game,but I still would rather be able to make my own decisions and face the consequences than to be forced into the victim role. I am almost certain that the theater was a "gunfree zone." Can anyone verify that for me?

Reply

Nate July 24, 2012 at 5:13 pm

Would the theater shooter have picked this place had a fair percentage of the occupants been armed, with or without training. He was foremost a coward, choosing the location knowing that there was very little chance that anyone but he would be armed. And just in case, he wore "Tactical" body armor. Gunfree zones invite mass murder. That is the biggest lesson to take away from this.

Reply

BD Cooper July 24, 2012 at 5:37 pm

-Switzerland virtually has no crime… hmmm

Culturally and ethnically monolithic societies have little to no crime so that factoid is irrelevant.

England outlawed guns so knifings increased to the point you have to be over 21 to buy steak knives.

Reply

Model1911A1 July 24, 2012 at 8:45 pm

What a ****!

Reply

StuG July 24, 2012 at 11:08 pm

Heroics is a nice word, Carl; but, one is only a hero if he or she saves the day, even risking their life. Otherwise they are just dead. With twenty years in the army, including Vietnam plus another twenty plus years in the criminal justice business, we are taught to size up the situation and decide which battles are worth fighting. The biggest lesson here is that "stuff happens." Everything else is pure speculation by the politicians and Monday Morning quarterbacks. Two recent radio talk show hosts, one former sheriff and the other a former peace officer, advised against the armed citizen taking action in this situation. Of course, this is all hindsight. In a dark theater in the midst of chaos, who would know that the shooter was heavily armed and armored? Sure, if I happened to be there and packing my 9mm, I'd take a shot. Knowing what we know now, no doubt I'd be one of the dead. No hero, just dead.

Reply

SSG July 25, 2012 at 4:20 am

Fact: I probably have more training with a weapon than most.
Fact: I am in a war zone where the possibility of me using my training is very HIGH.
Fact: Even with all of my training, I would have a hard time with this CO deal.

Why? My first duty is to protect. I know everyone wants to be the big HERO like in the movies, but lets be honest. Unless you are like the select few Gentlemen in my field. MOST of you would lock up under such stress. I will engage my enemy when the opportunity presents itself. Until such time, escort others to safety. Being armed doesn't make you the expert. We can all stop at least one bullet.

Reply

StuG July 25, 2012 at 7:01 am

Thank you for your comments; and, your service, SSG. As less than one percent of the US population have ever served in the military, most have no idea what it's like to be in a true life or death situation that erupts in chaos and lasts no more than a few seconds or minutes. Knowing you're about to die changes instantly your way of thinking. You're right, it ain't like the movies.

There are so many scenarios that can play out in any given situation; but, the bottom line is that a CCW is for "personal protection." Trying to play cop in a crisis is not recommended. For one, most people aren't trained for anything other than protecting themselves; and two, a cop arriving on a shooting scene will just see another guy with a gun. You will be viewed as a potential threat. In short, there is much to think about and only seconds to act.

Reply

StuG July 25, 2012 at 7:17 am

A State approved CCW class in California can cost less than $200. It's as important to understand the laws as to be proficient with a firearm. Most people don't realize that if you take a life or injure someone, even though justified, you are likely to be arrested on the spot. There will be an investigation. You may have to hire an attorney; and, could even be sued by the culprits family. Packing a weapon is not the same as riding a bike, driving a car or working in a kitchen. The results can be costly and deadly.

Reply

Jim July 25, 2012 at 7:29 am

touch a nerve

Reply

Glenno July 25, 2012 at 7:52 am

Good points Jim. It's all theory until it happens for real. It is great to have a plan, but as Prussian General Herman Von Moltke once observed, "battle plans rarely survive first contact with the enemy.". We may never know what was going through Holmes mind as he is unlikely to give a full and completely honest recounting.

Reply

Glenno July 25, 2012 at 8:03 am

I think you had better do some more research! Switzerland is not monolithic, either culturally or ethnically. Three major languages are spoken – French, German and Italian – depending on which canton (think province) a person lives in. Most Swiss also learn English because it it the language of world trade and diplomacy. It is a culturally diverse nation because of its geographic location and it's history.

Australia also removed general gun ownership in the 1990s after a number of ASI incidents. Yes, there has been an increase in knife crimes, but there have been no mass knifings on the scale of the previous mass shootings.

Funny thing is, while you have to be 21 to purchase alcohol in America, in Australia, the age is 18. Maybe that earlier start makes them more mellow 'downunder'.

Reply

crackedlenses July 25, 2012 at 10:11 am

I do not agree with the reasoning that increased knifings is an acceptable trade-off for the elimination of mass shootings. The only reason that mass knifings do not occur is because they are impractical. As the Israelis have found, mass killers will find ways to kill en masse even if guns are off the table. They will have to be smarter, of course, but the Aurora killer was no idiot.

As for knifings in general, I see it as a downgrade for everyone. The fact that now any fool with a knife can commit a crime with impunity, and that a group of fools with a knife can threaten even a trained civilian is not a step forward.

Perhaps I am wrong, but I would rather risk meeting a killer with a gun and keep the freedom to respond in like kind than trade it for a society where thugs don't even need guns.

Reply

Glenno July 25, 2012 at 8:12 am

It seems that irony is lost on you Carl. The point of my comment was to provide contrast. The courts have placed reasonable limits on free speech and the same needs to occur for gun ownership. Without some reasonable limits we ultimately run the risk that children will have the right to own and carry MAC 10s and PhD students will be able to equip hems elves with assault rifles and body armor.

What I have read from some here and elsewhere sound a bit like advocacy for a free for all under the guide of the right to keep and bear arms. Clearly you do not want that to happen, and neither do I. There need to be reasonable limits placed around how the Constitution is interpreted. Calling people names and accusing them of wild eyed crazy rhetoric is unhelpful to the debate.

Reply

Glenno July 25, 2012 at 8:15 am

Agreed.

Reply

Jim July 25, 2012 at 8:29 am

So much for free speech.

Reply

Glenno July 25, 2012 at 8:36 am

Carl, your posts leave me a bit concerned. You sound like you are more worried about the govt taking your guns off you than you are about getting involved in a fire fight with someone. The way you write leads me to conclude that you are not an LEO. It also leads me to wonder just how much training you have had. Have you ever attended training in the law related to the use of deadly force? Do you keep yourself current in both the law and tactics? Do you practice regularly under circumstances that reasonably replicate an armed confrontation? If you answer no to any of these questions, then you are a danger to yourself and to the public and you should not be allowed to carry a weapon in public.

If you were trained and experienced in such situations, the last thing you would be talking about is the chance to take the bad guy with you, of only because you would recognise that he might not be the only bad guy there is.

Consequently, I am led to the inference that you are basically full of **** and are only worried that you might lose the right to strut around in your camos with your concealed carry weapon showing for all the rest of us to see.

You could do us all a big favor and avoid deadly confrontation of any kind. That way the police will not have to investigate your unnecessary death and those of the innocent bystanders you accidentally hit while trying to go out in a blaze of glory. Investigating the violent death of an idiot is just as traumatic to us as investigating the violent death of anyone else, and more traumatic if the particular idiot also causes the deaths of innocent bystanders.

BTW, those people who do see your weapon are way more likely to view you as some kind of red necked moron than as their prospective savior. Time to wake up and smell the stuff you are standing in.

Reply

duane wood July 25, 2012 at 8:39 am

The man in the photo has the muzzle of his rifle in THE DIRT!!! What the f**k??

Reply

crackedlenses July 25, 2012 at 10:13 am

That is precisely why gunfire, even gunfire that did not kill or even hit him, could have worked. Risky? Definitely. But the mere presence of pushback probably would have saved lives.

Reply

Paul July 25, 2012 at 10:46 am

To STUG: If you read the whole report from Tuzson, you will see that a civilian ,who was carrying that day ,left a nearby store and went to the scene upon hearing the gunfire.He secured the shooter's weapon ,which had been taken by an un-armed spectator as he was trying to re-load. The civilian turned the weapon over to the first arriving LEO afer re-holstering his weapon. The LEO asked him to stand by for further questions.

Reply

StuG July 25, 2012 at 9:28 pm

Thanks, hadn't heard that. That situation was an entirely different scenario. For one, it was in broad daylight. And, yes, that is just the way you would hope it would happen. That was a textbook action. A not so text book action would be if someone just blew the assailant away.

Reply

BLACK July 25, 2012 at 2:28 pm

This comment puts the hammer on the head of the nail…

Reply

BLACK July 25, 2012 at 3:41 pm

From my lane:
First, my respects to all here. You are here for a reason and there are other places on the errornet you can be turning your brain to mush at but you are here. Thank you.

My CCW application experience here in the ************* state was pretty short and sweet. No matter how valid my "good guy card" is and no matter how objective the statistical information provided was, I was basically informed that I should come back after I have been shot or stabbed, survive and file a police report…Then maybe they will consider it. Or I can just dump 4000.00 into the deputy sheriff donation fund or on some local political ****** and have an even better chance.
Personally, I dont need a CCW to be a service to my fellow citizens in a time like that which we are drooling over now. As much as having a gun on the hip makes my chest feel a bit more swollen, I can be just as dangerous but naked with no labor saving accoutrements attached. I was not born dangerous, I wasnt trained that way, its a selfless choice I made as it is the citizens duty to protect and preserve their fellow citizens. Rarely this must be done with violence but just becuase those moments are rare, that does not mean that daily mental, physical and spiritual preparation is not on tap. Whats missing in many people that spend much of their day sitting and much of their free time in front of the idiot box is the will and intent to use violence as a tool…most use use some sort of magical ignorance to avoid the beast or they resort to social means of solving a completely a-social problem. Our society has buried our violent past under a bed of fake roses. Our nation of riflemen is but a relic. Most Americans couldnt fight their way out of a paper bag let alone face the madness contained within demons such as the above named. I dont want guns in the hands of most of the idiots I have to share my space with but that doesnt mean they are all civvys…some are military and law enforcement too….imagine that.
A gun does not give you, me or anyone magical powers so I cannot put so much emphasis on the "if more good people were packin"…wether it be Joe ************* or Gi joe himself. As far as I am concerned there could have been 20 people in that theatre with CCW's but thats not going to indicate in any way that the situation would have turned out different. So what you have a gun, so what you have some training, so what you are a rangemaster,ispc wiz, certified NRA instructor, took a shot to the face in fallujah or what have you….can you, at a moments notice,access the tool of violence and drive those intentions right through the target. Any one, baptized in blood or still in pearly white linens must constantly question themselves internally. Hence is the daily bread of those that call themselves warriors, silently or out loud. I look to situations like this , not to question others but to question myself. Lets all use this as a tool to take a journey inward and fortify that which we hold dear…whatever your creed or ethos is.
Forgive the rant and any spelling or grammatical errors that may be contained within it.
Again, my respects to all here and my condolences for those who are at a loss becuase of this tragedy.

Reply

StuG July 25, 2012 at 9:18 pm

Finally, a voice of reason. Depending on where you are in the ************* State (California?) it shouldn't be difficult to get a CCW. Unless, that is, you live in LA or SanFrancisco. It took a law suit against the Sacramento Sheriffs Office to get them to adopt a "shall issue" position. Not wanting to incur the expense of a similar suit, Placer and Eldorado Counties followed. If you haven't heard, many California cities and counties are strapped for cash now,…to the point that they are laying off peace officers. Anyway, the detective that interviewed me said that only about 8% of the applications are being denied. The downside in this county now is that there is a backlog at the Sac sheriffs which may take about a year to complete the process. Oh, the only reason you need to give for requesting a CCW is "personal protection."

On a side note, one of the questions asked was during my interview was, "have you ever been involved in any incidents involving firearms?" My answer was "yes, three major campaigns with the US Army in Vietnam in 1967/68." The detective replied "we don't count those. "
Good luck.

Reply

carl July 25, 2012 at 8:22 pm

i was referring to the young man that took a bullet for his girl friend and her brother.
In their eyes as well as mine; he was heroic.

Reply

Jack July 29, 2012 at 5:05 pm

As someone from the UK with no knowledge of the US gun owner community this thread was very interesting to read, so thanks all.

My only gun experience was firing l85s at a range while an air force cadet. I enjoyed it, but have no desire to own a weapon and am glad it is illegal here in the UK.

Just to clarify something – a lot of US people I have spoken to recently seem to think the UK has been swept by knifings. This just isn't true! I am a Londoner, and Yes as a younger stupid boy looking for trouble, once or twice I have had knives pulled on me, but was always able to resolve the situation by talking the idiot down. Glad I didn't have a CCW to escalate and cause the kind of complications referred to.

Noone seems to have discussed issue of a child finding that "gun on the table" scenario.

Anyway, thanks all and stay safe, CCW or no.

Reply

john July 29, 2012 at 5:19 pm

In re: :gun on the table….in my house it was a non-issue,when daughter was a toddler my weapon was kept out of reach,and she came to not be fascinated because thecuriousity was met with"demystifying' weapons,a matter of education and discipline. She is now military and only mildy enthusiastic about personal weapons. She now makes bombs for a living,and works with 30mm cannons on Warthogs. Guns are tools,friend,and while Americans have a fascination for them,it does not make us evil. also note that Royal Marine Commandoes are in basic training for a year.

Reply

Jim Greer July 29, 2012 at 7:40 pm

The "gun on the table" happens infrequently, but is not unknown. In my jurisdiction we had two in one week, but haven't had one since (18 mos.). Always the adult's fault, a terrible waste – always preventable.

Reply

BLACK July 30, 2012 at 11:20 am

This is a very good point.
There are those who choose to carry that understand it is our duty to protect each other…not becuase we are armed or consider ourselves sheepdogs and what have you but becuase its our duty as citizens of this country. You dont need a CCW to be obliged to protect those in your perimeter…wether they are your own kin or complete strangers. Our society has domesticated violence to the point that people are afraid to do what is righteous and just.

Reply

janus July 31, 2012 at 9:08 pm

funnily enough, parts of those gun laws read word-for-word the same as the ones that were put into place in Germany in the late 30's….

Reply

USMC/LAPD/Grunt August 2, 2012 at 6:20 pm

Bump to 18-D, Pete and David. Well stated!

Reply

Philip November 9, 2012 at 1:50 pm

Just as "a .22LR in your hand is better than the .45 in your gun-safe", I think that having one or more CCW holders in the audience might have helped. They certainly couldn't have made it much worse, anyway. I also believe that ANY shots that Holmes couldn't account for would likely have sent him running.

We have a right to defend ourselves and others. We all agree to this. We all also seem to agree that more training is better than less training, or no training. I do not agree with the concept of "complete the training or you don't get your CCW", because that's prone to abuse by the system. They'll just make getting your CCW training and any other requirements prohibitively expensive. But we all want more training, right? How about this: I'm not a Secret Squirrel Death Dealing Super Ninja (SSDDDSN for short), but if anyone wants to come shooting with me, I'll take them shooting and teach them basic firearm safety. I'll let them use my pistols/rifles/shotguns, and I'll even provide the ammo. NOTE: depending on my finances in that moment, the time at the range may be shorter or longer, but I'll absolutely share what I have set aside for training with anyone that wants to shoot. Should any SSDDSN types want to join us, come on down. I fully acknowledge that people are entitled to making a living and would gladly give it to a SSDDSN for some of his/her hard-earned knowledge, but I can also improve my skills quite a bit by simply practicing more often with what I already know. I bet if we all reached out to some non-gunnies and invited/coerced them into coming shooting, we'd start turning the opinions of the masses.

Reply

DavidT January 15, 2013 at 2:52 pm

I would absolutely agree that:

1. very few people who get CC permits are truely ready to use lethal force to defend themselves…

2. and even fewer of them would have been able to do much productive in a situation such as in Aurora, CO…

I get all that, and like the guy at the Portland Mall, I would hope that anyone not comfortable with the situation would not take the shoot and just do their best to survive. However I would rather I had a CC weapon in that situation and if I did not, I would wish for someone else to have one regardless of how much training or proficiency we had. The remaining option is to let the deranged person shooting into the crowd continue unchallenged until the police arrive. Would he have stopped if challenged? Would he have shot and killed a CC weapons holder who challenged him? We will never know. We do know that he continued shooting into the audience until police arrived.

Reply

john January 15, 2013 at 3:08 pm

I do not want to rely on a cop that may be..however far away,and I do not trust the judgement of my safety made by some politician or bureaucrat removed in time and space in some safe place. Okay,who said it?" I would rather have one and not need it,than need it and not have it." A free man can decide himself what is a responsible course of action,and is willing to face any consequences. That is called freedom. A man has the liberty to take action,whatever his choice is,without someone else telling him what he can do or must do,or must not do. We as Americans are losing both freedom and liberty slowly,gradually. Oh,since police are not responsible for an person's individual safety, howcomw individuals are not allowed to provide for their own?

Reply

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: