Dallas Morning News article

[hirundo82]

No, I do not believe that the restrictions for bars should be lifted, I am against concealed carry into a bar. Alcohol and guns do not mix, period, and they never will. But it does not take a trained-for-combat soldier or officer to know who the guy is that is shooting people at random, and how to point and pull the trigger.

(Emphasis added)

This is exactly the attitude that made it illegal until this year to carry anywhere that sold alcohol (including Wal-Mart, etc) in New Mexico until this year.

What about those who are going to be the designated driver and decide to be the designated carrier as well? Many states allow concealed carry in bars, and you do not hear about people with a CHL there getting intoxicated and shooting people.

Plus, one can get just as intoxicated in a restaurant, many of which have bars, but do not sell enough to be a 51% establishment. It is already illegal to carry while intoxicated, and that is enough.

[Renegade]

And the statistics show that police "misiinterpret" situations more often than citizens do, and shoot the wrong person.

Please provide info on those "statistics".

It's well established TXI. Its easier for civi's to spot the BG when they get attacked by one. The police have a tougher job of figuring out who the BGs are.

+1

It is the 11x statistic....

[Liberty]

This is exactly the attitude that made it illegal until this year to carry anywhere that sold alcohol (including Wal-Mart, etc) in New Mexico until this year.

What about those who are going to be the designated driver and decide to be the designated carrier as well? Many states allow concealed carry in bars, and you do not hear about people with a CHL there getting intoxicated and shooting people.

Plus, one can get just as intoxicated in a restaurant, many of which have bars, but do not sell enough to be a 51% establishment. It is already illegal to carry while intoxicated, and that is enough.

Its been mentioned before in another thread, and I am another one that loves good music with an Ice tea, coffee or a soda pop. Attending a 51%er has nothing to do with alcohol for me and many other music lovers. It is against the law for us to be intoxicated while carrying. As a CHLer we are proven to be law respecting and trustworthy. To imply that we as a group can't be trusted to keep sober sounds like a case of self rightousness.

[wjmphoto]

But the percentage of the population that has shared Ms. Hupp's awful experience is – thank God – statistically infinitesimal. As married as we seem to be to the idea that deranged-lunatic rampages constitute a daily threat, accidental shootings kill infinitely more people ...

That is so untrue that it could qualify as a lie. Intentional homicides kill many time more people than accidental shootings. There are about 10,000 homicides a year in the U.S., and serveral hundred accidental shootings (some of which may be misclassified suicides). I don't have time to look up the numbers, but they're not hard to find.

- Jim

If you reread what she is saying, she is correct.

"Deranged lunatic rampages" like VT are rare and are not the typical type of shooting scenarios that make up the 10,000 homicides every year. She is referring to mass shooting sprees, not individual homicides or even criminal homicides that may involve several victims but are not motivated by the same types of reasons that drove the VT massacre, Columbine or even the Amish shootings. Thankfully these mass killing are not everyday occurences as she is pointing out.

If you look at 2006, there were 2 mass shootings perpetuated by head cases that I remember offhand, the Capital Hill Massacre (6 killed) and the Amish school shootings (5 killed). That is much less than the 649 deaths in the US from accidental firearm discharges in 2004 which is about the average. (This was from the CDC using their mortality report sheet that allows you to put in specific parameters to determine death rates by a specific cause.)

[wjmphoto]

I will stress here that I am not agreeing with the author of the article and her premise that allowing CHL's to carry everywhere is a bad idea. I am simply saying that her assertion regarding crazed shooting sprees and accidental shootings is statistically correct. That does not mean that people should not be able to be prepared should such a situation arise. In fact it is a good thing that even though we may be prepared to defend ourselves, statistically most of us will never have to actually live through an event like this.

[KBCraig]

Plus, one can get just as intoxicated in a restaurant, many of which have bars, but do not sell enough to be a 51% establishment. It is already illegal to carry while intoxicated, and that is enough.

Excellent point.

Texarkana is semi-dry, meaning no package sales or bars on the Texas side of town, but restaurants sell beer, wine and liquor by the drink. Thus, there are no 51% establishments here, but there are plenty of drunks staggering out of Applebee's, Chili's, etc.

Kevin

[txinvestigator]

And the statistics show that police "misiinterpret" situations more often than citizens do, and shoot the wrong person.

Please provide info on those "statistics".

It's well established TXI. Its easier for civi's to spot the BG when they get attacked by one. The police have a tougher job of figuring out who the BGs are.

I am not disagreeing that police have shot "innocent" people who appeared to be the bad guy, but if you say "statistics prove blah blah, over blah blah" I am gonna call you on it.

I have never seen such statistics, yet have heard plenty of anecdotal evidence. I would like to see those "statistics".

[frankie_the_yankee]

I am not disagreeing that police have shot "innocent" people who appeared to be the bad guy, but if you say "statistics prove blah blah, over blah blah" I am gonna call you on it.

I have never seen such statistics, yet have heard plenty of anecdotal evidence. I would like to see those "statistics".

I have seen them, in the writings of Ayoob who I believe to be a trustworthy source. And let me stress, not anecdotal evidence, actual numbers of shootings/deaths for a given time period.

I just can't put my hands on the actual reference at the moment. But I sometimes re-read some of Ayoob's stuff to keep my knowledge "fresh". So I'm sure I'll run into it down the road. And when I do I'll post it.

That aside, would you agree that it is obvious that the police have a much more difficult tactical problem when they arrive on the scene of a shooting in progress than faced by an LAC who was present the whole time?

And there's another angle. I think we all agree that the national media is not our friend. I think that they are much more friendly with the Brady Bunch than they are with us. And I think we all agree that the Brady Bunch is apoplectic at the thought of "shall issue" CHL's and the whole notion of people carrying guns for self defense.

It's also quite obvious that the national media does not often report instances where LAC's lawfully shoot BG's. If nothing else, every month the NRA publishes an "Armed Citizen" column with 8 or 10 such incidents, almost none of which make the national media. (Lott has the numbers on this if you're interested.)

But how likely do you think it is that the national media would fail to report instances where armed LAC's capped Good Guys by mistake? I believe these instnaces WOULD be reported if they were happening. The Brady Bunch would tip them off, feed them the data, and "Presto!" - a new "investigative report" would come out beating the drum for repeal of the "shall issue" laws.

Have you seen any such report? I haven't.

Go to the Brady Bunch website. See how many stories of CHL'ers capping good guys you can find. And note that with an outfit like them, you are looking at the sum of 1) actual occurrences, 2) incidents that they intentionally misrepresent, and 3) stuff that they just make up.

So I'll cite the reference to statistics when I run into it.

But it's pretty obvious that armed LAC's very rarely shoot the Good Guy by mistake as Ms. Floyd was speculating would happen.

[O6nop]

The gist of his idea, proposed in the aftermath of the appalling slaughter by a lone gunman at Virginia Tech, is that public safety will be heightened if people are allowed to have guns in more places.

But the percentage of the population that has shared Ms. Hupp's awful experience is – thank God – statistically infinitesimal. As married as we seem to be to the idea that deranged-lunatic rampages constitute a daily threat...

My main purpose for getting a CHL was not to protect others from a murdering rampage, it was to protect myself and my family from immediate harm.
I'm also a believer that if it is assumed that there MAY be an armed citizen or two, in a random area, the potential killer will be less likely to attempt his carnage. Just as a robber or rapist may hesitate before attempting his action if there is a possibility that their potential victim is armed and prepared to send them to prison or the hospital., or the morgue.

[seamusTX]

If you reread what she is saying, she is correct.

"Deranged lunatic rampages" like VT are rare and are not the typical type of shooting scenarios that make up the 10,000 homicides every year. She is referring to mass shooting sprees, not individual homicides or even criminal homicides that may involve several victims but are not motivated by the same types of reasons that drove the VT massacre, Columbine or even the Amish shootings. Thankfully these mass killing are not everyday occurences as she is pointing out.

You are right, but the author's statement is still sophistry. IMO, I initially read it the way that most people would.

Mass killings by deranged people are rare. Random acts of violence are not. Legitimate use of firearms for protection occurs far more often than accidental killing.

- Jim

[CHL/LEO]

Russell wrote:
No, I do not believe that the restrictions for bars should be lifted, I am against concealed carry into a bar. Alcohol and guns do not mix, period, and they never will.

LEOs are allowed to carry concealed into bars and 51% establishments. I don't see a reason why CHL holders shouldn't be able to either. It's not your presence near alcohol that would cause the problem - it's getting intoxicated and doing something stupid. If a LEO or CHL does that then they need to be dealt with appropriately.

[NcongruNt]

Russell wrote:
No, I do not believe that the restrictions for bars should be lifted, I am against concealed carry into a bar. Alcohol and guns do not mix, period, and they never will.

LEOs are allowed to carry concealed into bars and 51% establishments. I don't see a reason why CHL holders shouldn't be able to either. It's not your presence near alcohol that would cause the problem - it's getting intoxicated and doing something stupid. If a LEO or CHL does that then they need to be dealt with appropriately.

I agree. If I were able to carry into a bar, I wouldn't drink under my CHL. Every CHL knows the restrictions on intoxication and is required to follow the law. I don't see how we're suddenly going to be unable to control ourselves if we were allowed to carry in a 51% establishment.

As was stated earlier, I find it unreasonable to be unable to carry in a DD situation, or even when going to see a band. Living in Austin, I can tell you that 99%+ of the musical shows here are at 51% venues. Being unable to effectively defend myself just so I can see a band just doesn't seem right.

[stroo]

Ayoob specifically recommends that you carry a cell phone and if you ever have to even show your weapon, to call 911. He also recommends that if you are involved in a shooting to tell the police something along the lines of "there is my attacker. I am willing to press charges". The point of those recommendations is that the police often take the first person to claim victim status as the victim and the other party as the BG, i.e. they misinterpret who the BG is.

That is also the reason why if you are involved in a shooting, assuming that you prevail, you should either reholster your gun or put on the ground. Every time I have read that recommendation it is because if the police arrive and see you gun in hand, they are likely to think you are the BG and deal with you accordingly, i.e. they misinterpret who is the BG.

Statistics or not, simply given the nature of their job, it is obvious that police have a tougher time identifying the BG than does the civilian who the BG was attacking or who witnessed the attack first hand on someone else.

[seamusTX]

Ayoob specifically recommends that you carry a cell phone and if you ever have to even show your weapon, to call 911.

So do many instructors. I forget who said or wrote it, if there's no other evidence, the first to call 911 wins.

With nearly everyone having a cell phone, and all the security cameras (some of which are easy to miss), someone is quite likely to call if they see any kind of confrontation.

- Jim

[frankie_the_yankee]

Ayoob specifically recommends that you carry a cell phone and if you ever have to even show your weapon, to call 911. He also recommends that if you are involved in a shooting to tell the police something along the lines of "there is my attacker. I am willing to press charges". The point of those recommendations is that the police often take the first person to claim victim status as the victim and the other party as the BG, i.e. they misinterpret who the BG is.

That is also the reason why if you are involved in a shooting, assuming that you prevail, you should either reholster your gun or put on the ground. Every time I have read that recommendation it is because if the police arrive and see you gun in hand, they are likely to think you are the BG and deal with you accordingly, i.e. they misinterpret who is the BG.

Statistics or not, simply given the nature of their job, it is obvious that police have a tougher time identifying the BG than does the civilian who the BG was attacking or who witnessed the attack first hand on someone else.