DU gun owners, are you trained to use your gun in a crowd in self defense?

[CreekDog]

and those of you that carry your firearm on you, would you use it without such training, among a crowd of people such as were gathered at the Tucson event?

and gun owners and other experts, does the average firearm owner have the skills necessary to effectively and safely use a weapon in an incident such as the one in Tucson, or do many lack training necessary to not make things worse?

[Cid_B]

1. Yes, Maybe, Runs the whole spectrum...

[CreekDog]

23. I'm just saying that it seems like special training is required to use a gun in a crowd

and if anybody who brings one to gatherings for protection has that special training.

[shadowrider]

56. Police have "special training" right? They know about shooting and crowds, right?

http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20110111/NEWS02/701119860/0/taxonomylist

So should police also be prohibited from firing in a crowd, even though they have "special training"?

[leftofcool]

2. I only carry mine at night when travelling alone, so no would not use it in a crowd

and do not carry it in the daytime for normal activities like shopping.

[JustFiveMoreMinutes]

3. .

[TheWraith]

7. The shooter did not have an "automatic."

Please stick to real facts.

[JustFiveMoreMinutes]

11. ..

[TheWraith]

14. Again, please stick to something close to reality, and don't hijack the OP.

Crimes committed with automatic weapons in the US are virtually nonexistant.

[JustFiveMoreMinutes]

15. .

[hlthe2b]

4. I was impressed with the guy Ed interviewed carrying concealed,

who came upon the scene a bit late in its unfolding. He was thoughtful and not at all boisterous about whether or not he would have used the gun, though he indicated he would not have hesitated if necessary, but with considerable relief that he did not. He didn't have to shoot the gun-- though he had removed the safety and had his hand on it within his pocket--because the perpetrator had already been tackled. Yet, he also indicated that he had grabbed the gun out of the hand of a person who, as it turned out, had just recovered the gun from the perp.

Hearing this story, I was thinking what might have happened if someone less level-headed had come on that scene and shot the person holding the gun-who as it turned out was one of the victims. This is what makes me so worried about all this CCW encouragement. How many people would be like the calm guy interviewed, who showed appropriate restraint and how many might, with adrenaline flowing, been more willing to shoot without fully assessing the scene?

[FarLeftRage]

5. No.

And I would not bring my gun anywhere near a crowd...

[CreekDog]

10. good but i think a lot of people are thinking and encouraging just that

as a solution to an incident such as the one that happened in Tucson.

[TheWraith]

6. Disclaimer: I don't own a pistol, so obviously I don't carry one.

However I will say that the large crowd would make any effective attempt at using a gun in (self) defense very difficult, because you're surrounded by people who are panicking and behaving unpredictably. So if you draw on the shooter, there's no guarantee that someone isn't going to run right in front of you. It makes things an order of magnitude more complicated than a self defense situation in which you are alone, or with people you know and who will react predictably.

The rational thing would be to evaluate the situation based on a number of factors. For instance, someone ten feet from the shooter behind him would be much better placed to act than someone thirty feet away across the crowd. Also whether your line of fire and backstop are clear--the latter being important because bullets don't always stop in the target--and whether the attacker would be aware of you.

I've heard that there was at least one person in the crowd who was carrying, but didn't fire. I can't say I blame them, given the circumstances, and the speed with which the attack happened. If this had been a Lubys or Virginia Tech situation, where the attacker was going slow and methodical, there might have been time for someone to size up the situation and act. But hasty action would have been unlikely to benefit anyone.

[ZombieHorde]

8. Everything I know about gun use I learned from the first five minutes of The Machine Girl...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsVpklQR2K0

I actually did take a gun safety class when I was a kid, but we didn't cover crowds, and I don't own a gun.

[derby378]

9. I tend towards long guns instead of pistols...

...so it's a bit more impractical to carry a long gun in an urban setting, law or no law. However, I have learned that there are a few non-lethal means of subduing an attacker using certain types of long gun, and I do take great interest in those techniques. It does not require clubbing someone in the head with the buttstock - it's a bit more cerebral than that, and relies on inertia and force.

[Pancho Sanza]

12. It's a trick question, isn't it? Haha

kinda like "have you stopped beating your wife".

Seriously, your question is framed in such broad terms, it can't be honestly answered. Like most real life situations, the proper response is "it depends" - on far too many factors to make a general evaluation.

It does seem that if there were armed spectators in Tucson (we know for sure there was at least one), he (or they) didn't go crazy and whip out a gun and start shooting. It's how I'd expect civilians who have some very basic training and/or knowledge of their guns to behave. It's a little sadly amusing to read posts by some folks who are berating them for failing to do anything but would be even -more- horrified if they HAD.

Anyway, the truth is that very few trained policemen/women have both sufficient training and presence of mind to do much of anything useful with their sidearms in that kind of situation, in the 20 to 30 second timeframe.

[CreekDog]

13. It's not a trick question for anybody planning to act responsibly

:hi:

[Pancho Sanza]

18. Yes, I keep forgetting about all those people planning to act irresponsibly.

Look, it's virtually impossible to train for this kind of event. Sure one can develop great marksman skills but they aren't much use if you can't identify and safely take out the right attacker...that's just a damn hard thing to do in a crowded environment.

[guitar man]

16. My skills are way above average

I was trained by the finest marksmen on the planet and almost 30 years later, I'm still as good as I ever was, I can drive tacks with every weapon I own.

As for what to do in a panicked crowd? That would depend on what was going on at the time. Where is the shooter? Do I have a clear shot at him? What's the crowd doing? What's going to happen if I shoot? What's going to happen if I don't?

It's a lot to think about, and I think it's one of those things where you just have to be in the situation at that moment in time to really know. The thing NOT to do is to just pull your weapon and start slinging shots you're not sure of, that could only make matters worse.

[CreekDog]

17. but did your training include not hitting other things?

:shrug:

[Pancho Sanza]

20. You replied to him, asking the very question he answered in his post

that you replied to.........

????????????????

[CreekDog]

25. nope he didn't...he said he was trained to hit the target

as others here have pointed out, not hitting anything other than the intended target is a separate issue.

[guitar man]

31. The bottom line is

There are no guarantees. I can't imagine what it must have been like with the guy shooting, the crowd scattering every which way, the confusion and panic.

Generally if I'm going somewhere where I'm going to be in a big,tightly packed crowd, I'll leave the iron at home. I don't think it would be very useful in that kind of environment. But it is food for thought, you're in a crowd of some sort, some shit jumps off, what to do....it can't be easy

[Straw Man]

46. Hitting the target.

If you hit the target, then you do not hit anything that is not the target--with a few significant exceptions. One is shotguns, which shoot a cloud of pellets: some of your pellets may hit the target while others hit something close to the target. The other is overpenetration: your bullet passes completely through the target and strikes something behind it. This can be minimized with the use of hollowpoint ammunition, which flattens on impact and is therefore much less likely to overpenetrate. This is why virtually all police departments use it.

To answer the OP, I have done handgun classes in which some of the drills involved several life-sized targets, one designated as "shoot" while all the others were "no-shoot." They were placed in various configurations: shoot target next to no-shoot targets, shoot target behind no-shoot targets, shoot target in front of no-shoot targets. In the last situation, overpenetration was very much an issue, since these were paper targets on cardboard backers. In every case, I was able to hit the shoot target without hitting the no-shoot targets. (This is all at distances of less than 10 yards.) Consider, however, that this was a no-stress situation. Stress inevitably degrades performance. In a real-world situation, I would probably not take most of the shots that I successfully made in training; the "no-shoots" were simply too close. With a clear background and "no-shoots" at least 2-3 lateral feet away from the main target, I might consider it.

This is no different from the training that police officers take. In fact, there were police officers in the class. Except for SWAT, most police officers do not do much rigorous weapons training.

[guitar man]

22. If your trained to hit your intended target

Then if you're 100% sure nothing else is in the way before you fire, all you will hit is your intended target.

But that's where the problem comes in with a moving crowd, innocent people could step into your line of fire pretty quickly. It's no doubt a tough situation and my hat is off to the Secret Service and others that are highly trained in such situations.

I think the bottom line is, if I was packing and some whacko started taking people out, I'd do my best and hope and pray I'd make the best judgement calls I possibly could and not make it worse. Depending on an infinite number of unknowns, I may or may not ever fire a shot.

[RamboLiberal]

48. +1 on that

Hard to say. If you have the shot then you might take it. Be better than allowing the shooter to continue to kill those in the crowd.

Hope I never have to test my skill.

[one-eyed fat man]

61. Mine did.

You avoid hitting other things by not shooting. You are only supposed to shoot when you have a clearly identified target, and are sure the target needs shooting.

You might also be distressed to know that security forces have some different rules of engagement depending what they are guarding.



There are those who are instructed to shoot through the human shield, if necessary to take out the bad guy. Like the guards on nuclear weapons storage facilities, among others not so obvious and not publicly known.

"From 1952 to 1969 hundreds of young men stood in "pillboxes"--concrete style bunkers with nothing but a slit opening to peer through or to fire a weapon--to keep strangers out of the classified area in the woods of Fort Campbell."

[KansasVoter]

27. LOL......! Just wow!

[The Traveler]

19. Yours is a strangely framed question

Combat is inherently unsafe, by definition. Friendly fire casualties are just one of the dangerous possibilities in a situation like this.

The question becomes for the gun owner ... is it better to take the shot? Or is it better to take cover, and hope the casualties are small in number? Or is it better to wait for someone else to deal with the situation? Or is it better to try to take on a man with a gun with only hands and feet? You have scant milliseconds to weigh these choices, and possibly others, before acting.

In this situation, I probably would have taken the shot.

BTW I do not carry. I think probabilities actually favor those who don't, and by not carrying I eliminate any risks of accidental discharge or loss of weapon to violent hands. The vast majority of us will go through our entire lives without ever being in a situation like this. While having a gun at that moment would be useful, every moment you carry a gun bears its own risk ... in my estimation, those risks exceed the risk of suddenly finding myself in the middle of an event of this nature.

But this is just my take on it.

Trav

[lawodevolution]

21. Yes and civilians are known to hit their targets while police kill innocent bystanders

[CreekDog]

24. do you have the training that a policeman has?

:hi:

[spin]

30. Police are well trained in their job but are not necessarily good shooters ...

Often a police department qualifies on the range on a yearly or semiannual basis. Many of the officers don't practice at the range between qualifications.

Many people with concealed carry permits shoot far more often and are at least as accurate and are often more accurate than the average police officer.

Still the police officer encounters stressful situations far more often than the normal citizen and that could even things out.

[Pancho Sanza]

34. Not to answer for your correspondent, but I have personally trained many policemen

to use sidearms. I am telling you that the mandated curriculum is VERY minimal and most cops can't hit the side of a barn. From the inside. After Academy graduation, MOST of them never even bother to keep up what little skills they ever had honed - donut shops don't like gunfire inside the store...
Okay I made that last part up :D

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

42. Keep in mind that cops do ALOT more than just guns.

They are required to know first aid, firearms handling, less-than-lethal weapons utilization, advanced/offensive driving, drug laws, traffic laws, physical combat, laws regarding arrest & restraint, theft laws, crime scene investigation..., ..., ...

All a CCW holder has to know is the law concerning the use of deadly force, where they can carry their weapon, and how to effectively use it. Cops have to learn so much that it would unlikely/difficult for a typical beat cop to shoot better than an avid handgun shooter/enthusiast unless that particular cop were a gun enthusiast themselves. This conclusion is just plain logical when you consider that shooting skill is actually a minor job role for officers. Research does show that CCW shot placement statistics are superior to law enforcement statistics.

:hi:

[RamboLiberal]

49. There are a lot of competition shooters I trust more than cops

At least we shoot nearly every weekend during the season. We shoot from various positions, on the move, with non-shoots in our way. Yeah they are somewhat static targets.

Some police departments have extensive training. Some the officers get only a couple of qualifying times a year. Some still train on targets standing on the line with little if any moving.

We have police that come out to shoot IDPA & USPSA because it is additional trigger time for them in situations their departments don't provide.

A lot of the civilians shooting USPSA and IDPA shoot as well as if not much better than the police that shoot with us.

I'd feel very comfortable in a situation requiring a handgun with any of the civilian shooters I shoot regulary with.

[table1]

81. look up the stats for police involved shootings

the hit rate is not that good.

[Abq_Sarah]

84. As far as firearms, my training

Is actually superior to what the average police officer has.

That said, I would be VERY hesitant to fire in a crowd. What are the chances I'd have a clear shot with no one behind or next to the gunman? I would have no immunity if I accidentally hit an innocent bystander.

[KansasVoter]

26. I have read any responses but I bet all these people are going to claim.....

they are the best damn shots in the world.

[guitar man]

28. Hey

Weren't you the one that was going to take the concealed carry class? How did that go, I'm curious?

[KansasVoter]

29. The class filled up, and since I was going for free I backed out so he could sell...

my spot. So I am going in the spring. Still looking forward to it.
For some reason people are mad at me for not going or said I chickened out. Not sure why they are angry!

[spin]

32. We were curious why you didn't go ...

You've explained your reason. I hope you get a chance to attend the class and report back. It should be interesting if you report fairly without bias.

[KansasVoter]

36. I am going open minded. But have some bias I admit!

[spin]

40. That's fair.

If I attended a class and reported on it, I would have to be careful of my bias too. I probably would detail my views both before and after the class.

[guitar man]

33. Eh

You'll go when you go, no hurry. Do you have your weapon yet?

[KansasVoter]

35. Not a handgun....

Only shotguns for me. And a 22 rifle. Going to borrow a friends.

[guitar man]

38. shotguns are fun

And these days my favorite thing to shoot is my .22 rifle. At 4 cents a round it's about the only thing I can afford to put a lot of rounds through anymore :O

[KansasVoter]

43. I agree with you there! Shooting cans still a blast!

[guitar man]

45. yeah, I shoot a lot of cans

I just got a new Ruger 10-22 for christmas and I love it, it's the most accurate .22 I've ever seen outside of the bolt action match grade .22s I shot in high school when I was on the JROTC marksmanship team. I can hit lids off 20 oz. coke bottles at 25 yards all day long...with open sights ;)

[Pancho Sanza]

37. Almost every town of any size in Kansas has a class at least once a month.

Strange you didn't notice that.

[KansasVoter]

44. Seems like a spring activity to me.

[Pancho Sanza]

47. Here is the Overland Park schedule (that's close to you, isn't it?)

http://www.targetmasteracademy.com/sched.html

There was one 2 days ago and 4 more in the next 60 days. I'll pay your fee if you'll agree to go.

[KansasVoter]

60. Nice offer, and I appreciate it, but I will get it this spring! And post a full report here!

[one-eyed fat man]

62. Heard that before

What's next, you tuck us all in?

[KansasVoter]

63. No, but teaching you some manors is on the list John Wayne!

[one-eyed fat man]

66. Whatever blows your skirt up!

[shadowrider]

57. You said in an earlier thread it was cancelled. Can't keep your stories straight? n/t

[spin]

39. Your question is impossible to answer without better parameters ...

1) How far is the shooter from you?

2) Are there people between you and the shooter and could they possibly run into your line of fire?

3) Are there people behind the shooter that you might accidentally hit or might be hit if your bullet passed through the shooter.

4) Could you be jostled by a person near you just as you take your shot causing you to miss and endanger other people?

5) Can you possibly take nonlethal force, such as disarming the shooter and forcing him to the ground? (Many martial arts courses teach weapons take away.)

Of course, you also have to be aware that if you pull your weapon, another person with a concealed weapon or a cop might mistake you for the bad guy and shoot you.

I would say that if I was absolutely certain of my shot I would take it. Otherwise I would seek cover and wait for a good opportunity or attempt to escape.

[CreekDog]

52. if you bring a gun into a crowd, you probably have to assume all those things could happen

are you trained to use your gun in such a situation or are you not?

if you are not specially trained for such a situation, are you more a danger to others by bringing it out?

i say yes.

[YllwFvr]

53. no more so than the police

[CreekDog]

74. do you have their level of training?

:shrug:

[YllwFvr]

82. im enrolled to start

police academy in a few weeks, so no, not yet :)


My brother however is a cop and he is quite disgusted with what most officers call shooting.

Ask me again. I doubt my answer will change. Shooting your gun once or twice a year hardly makes you any kind of a good shot. Im a gun enthusiast, I intend to be as good a shot as I can be

[Straw Man]

54. Why do you persist...

...in ignoring the responses by people who ARE trained to use a gun in such situations? They are all telling you that it's a judgment call, and a very difficult one at that, for police as well. It's not as if there is some kind of magical police training that doesn't work on ordinary citizens. Training is training.

You must also be aware that there are situations in which the police choose courses of action that put the general public at risk. Car chases are a case in point. These risks are deemed acceptable in view of the larger goal of maintaining law and order. You may or may not agree.

[CreekDog]

64. it's a discussion and i'm not ignoring the responses

there are people in society that are trained specifically to use guns in the situations i've described.

those are not most people who own guns.

the point of this is to address the very real cowboy talk that is going on in society among some gun owners that they'll handle it or it will be handled by folks carrying guns.

i asked if based on an individual's training or that of the average person who would be called on to do this would help or make worse the situation. in the process, i also have asked if even having a gun and feeling the need to respond will make folks in those situations more or less safe.

you know, this forum and its members all the time suggest that if more people were armed, it would somehow help reduce violence, crime and death and often it's immediately proceeding incidents like shootouts and so forth.

i'm asking if in FACT that actually will help or if it will hurt.

i've thoughtfully responded to many people here, that you don't like my answers is your problem and not mine.

[Straw Man]

70. Cowboy talk?

there are people in society that are trained specifically to use guns in the situations i've described.

Yes, there are. Some of them are police and some are not.

those are not most people who own guns.

You may very well be right, but that's not really what you asked, is it? You asked for individual experience. Furthermore, most people who own guns don't carry them in public, so it's moot.

the point of this is to address the very real cowboy talk that is going on in society among some gun owners that they'll handle it or it will be handled by folks carrying guns.

I don't see any "cowboy talk" in this thread.

i asked if based on an individual's training or that of the average person who would be called on to do this would help or make worse the situation. in the process, i also have asked if even having a gun and feeling the need to respond will make folks in those situations more or less safe.

I'm having trouble deciphering the syntax here, but it appears you are claiming to be involved in a good-faith discussion. You have been told by many here that your question is far too general and vaguely worded to be answered meaningfully. You have been told that there is such a complex collection of variables that it is impossible to predict the outcome of any given situation. Yet you continue to reiterate your original question, rephrased with the intention of pushing the negative response, that armed citizens can only make any situation worse.

you know, this forum and its members all the time suggest that if more people were armed, it would somehow help reduce violence, crime and death and often it's immediately proceeding incidents like shootouts and so forth.

i'm asking if in FACT that actually will help or if it will hurt.

It would take a massive national study of incident data to determine that. Have fun with your research, but I would suggest abandoning your preconceptions before beginning. Pesky little thing called "objectivity," you know.

i've thoughtfully responded to many people here, that you don't like my answers is your problem and not mine.

You may call this "responding thoughtfully"...

It's not a trick question for anybody planning to act responsibly

...but I don't.

if you are not specially trained for such a situation, are you more a danger to others by bringing it out?

i say yes.

If you already knew the answer, then why did you ask?

Some people are trained. Others aren't. People who are trained have a better chance of responding successfully that those that aren't. Many people are trained, not just police. Is that what you wanted to hear?

Awaiting your thoughtful response.

[spin]

65. Yes any of these things could happen, but not all at the same time ...

For example, I could be extremely close to the shooter or I would be some distance away with people between us.

If extremely close I might take the shot if he was shooting. I might attempt to physically disarm him if he was changing magazines or had a jammed weapon.

I would seek cover and wait or attempt to escape if I was too far from the shooter to take a confident shot. I am not a cop or a vigilante. I have no requirement or duty to take any action, especially an action that might make the situation worse.

I'm long past the macho days and I have never pretended to be a cowboy. The last thing that I would ever want to do is to shoot another person. Being a "hero" is not something that I aspire to or dream of becoming. Still, If I was in a situation were someone was shooting innocent people in a crowd and I was in a good position to stop him, I believe I would try.

While I have not trained for the specific situation of being in a crowd with a shooter, I feel that the training that I have received during my life (which includes some martial arts training) and the use of commonsense should hopefully enable me to take what would be considered the correct action. I have been in several interesting situations in my life and have managed to act in an appropriate manner.

I would have to live with the results of my actions. If things worked out well and I helped to stop the attack, I personally would attempt to disappear into the crowd. If I blew it and injured some innocent person, I would stay and face the consequences. If I was shot, that's just life. You can do everything right and still get killed. The worst case would be to have been in a position to stop the attack and failed to try and stood by watching innocent victims like the young girl die. I would find it hard to live with myself if that happened.

[CreekDog]

67. you might have to live with your actions, but others might die from them

frankly, i'm more worried about them than your having to live with it.

[spin]

68. So you would rather that a person with a concealed carry permit ...

would stop carrying his firearm and be unable to do anything to stop a shooter from killing innocents like this little girl.



Interesting.

[CreekDog]

72. if I believed it would make us all safer, I'd support it

but thinking in great detail about this subject is what stopped me from buying a gun when i was about to do so.

but i concluded that it would make me and others around me less safe, not more.

and i wasn't a bad shot, so that's not why.

i realized that carrying a gun as a solution to violence in most scenarios i could envision seemed like it would make me less safe, and possibly others less safe.

in almost every case where a gun was useful required both swift action and careful action --and those things conflicted with each other.

i'm sleeping at my campsite and somebody comes around? if my gun is to be useful, i have to be able to reach it, but how easily and how quickly should i be able to reach it and fire it? if too quickly, maybe it would've been better to use the time to skedaddle or drive off. if too quickly, might i be shooting at something without really knowing whether it was a threat or not and if so, whether the threat required deadly force.

and nevermind that most of the time i'm not camping in the wilderness, i'm at home and then i'd have a weapon to secure.

[spin]

79. Carrying a concealed firearm or even owning own is not for everybody ...

You took the correct approach and thought the situation through and decided not to buy a firearm.

I also considered the situation carefully back in 1970 and I decided to buy a firearm as there was reports of a prowler in our neighborhood and I was working late night shifts and leaving my wife alone at night. Both my wife and I went to the range and practiced shooting the .38 caliber revolver I had bought used from a coworker. We actually enjoyed the experience.

We moved to a different neighborhood and I traded the first .38 revolver on a Ruger .357 Blackhawk.



I continued to go the the range but my shooting never seemed to improve. There were few problems in our new neighborhood so I decided to trade the Ruger Bllackhawk in on a .22 cal Ruger Mark I target pistol. The picture below shows a Ruger Mark III, the latest version.



Steady trips to the range caused my shooting to finally improve as I began to master sight alignment, trigger pull, breath control and trigger pull. Eventually I decided to buy a higher caliber firearm another Ruger .357. Shooting turned in a regular hobby for my family as our little daughter would tag along and watch. She was interested in shooting so when she was eight or nine I cut down the stock of an old single shot .22 caliber rifle for her to use on the range. Eventually she wanted to try to "shoot a revolver like mommy and daddy do".

I found the only handgun that could fit her small hands was a S&W .22 caliber kit gun. I bought one and concentrated on teaching her gun safety and the basics of shooting a handgun at home. I had her learn the nomenclature of all the external parts of a revolver and had her practice loading and unloading the revolver using spend .22 cases. She knew a lot about how to safely handle a revolver before I ever let her shoot one on the range.



She became quite proficient with her Kit gun. Eventually she grew enough to be able to handle a larger caliber handgun. Her favorite was my S&W Model 25-2 45 acp Target Revolver. This firearm is the same size as Dirty Harry's .44 magnum and she loved the attention she received from the other shooters when she would load and shoot that firearm at the range.



One night when she was 17 or 18, an intruder attempted to break into our home by forcing the sliding glass door in the kitchen open. The burglar alarm was blaring and when she walked into then kitchen when the alarm wouldn't reset, she found the intruder half way in.

She remembers that he said, "I going to rape you."

She pointed the large S&W Revolver at him, and the sight of a tiny girl (5' 2" less than 100 pounds) pointing a large caliber revolver at him caused him to run.

Like you I thought carefully about owning a firearm and I'm glad I decided to buy my first back in 1970. Shooting turned out to be a great hobby through the years and the training I gave my daughter might have saved her life. Today I have two grandsons to teach shooting to.

[X_Digger]

41. I've been through self-defense training that includes live fire exercises in a 'kill house'..

And one thing you learn is that every situation is different.

The first tenet of being in a gun fight? Don't get into a position where you get into a gun fight.

If you have no choice? The second tenet of being in a gun fight? Have a gun.

Your gun is there to possibly protect you or yours. You aren't a cop, you aren't a hero. If you are in serious danger of grievous bodily harm, and have to draw and shoot, there are things you have to consider.

What's the backstop? If you miss, are you going to send a bullet into an innocent bystander or an apartment building? Is there cover and / or concealment? Will crouching down and shooting up reduce your chances of shooting a bystander, or increase it? Are you sure the bad guy is a bad guy?

It's drilled into your head that as a non-LEO, your actions will be judged more harshly than if you had a badge. Therefore, you should be damned sure before pulling the trigger.

I suggest similar training to those friends I know who carry (a bunch of us actually took the course together.)

Nothing specific in my training addressed your question directly. Personally, I think I'd apply the same tenets however. If I found myself in a crowd, shoulder to shoulder, and someone in the middle started shooting, no, it's stupid to shoot. I don't think any concealed carrier would disagree.

If the shooter is the only one standing because everyone else hit the deck, and there's nobody in the line of fire? And a safe backstop? And I couldn't see a means of getting to effective cover? Maybe.

There are no clear cut rules to deal with every scenario. You can what-if yourself into a corner, and it still won't cover everything.

Does your average firearm owner have that training? No. But then again, your average firearm owner is not a concealed carrier, either. Most concealed carriers I know have had multiple self-defense classes (from traditional martial arts, to bladed weapons, to advanced tactical training- I know some cops, too.)

So the short answer? Depends.

[AtheistCrusader]

50. Yes. One of the people that tackled the shooter was armed by the way.

He held his fire, and risked his life to tackle the shooter, because he didn't have a clear shot.

Most gun owners are responsible enough not to inflame the situation by firing irresponsibly.

[RamboLiberal]

73. Actually he was last on the scene

And didn't see the shooting going down. When he rounded a corner a bystander had picked up the killer's gun and he almost drew on him. He had the common sense to grab the guy's wrist and say "drop the gun" instead of drawing and shooting. When he figured out the killer was already on the ground trying to fight those restraining him he took the place of the brave woman who grabbed the mag in holding down the killer's legs.

[AtheistCrusader]

75. Thank you for the clarification.

I'm getting annoyed with the 'evolving' nature of the media's narrative of what happened.

[Francis Marion]

51. There are plenty of veterans and off duty cops in public who are capable

And no doubt some 'regular folks' also.

Q1) Don't carry- peasants don't have that choice in my county.

Q2) Maybe to doubtful.

But I'd like to be able to make the choice and have the hardware necessary.

People who comply with disarmament law are the most vulnerable to harm, and yet the least inclined to cause it.

People know when it's safe to change lanes or merge into traffic. The wrong decision there gets people killed. And yet we all make those decisions, hundreds of them, every day, uneventfully and respectfully. The world survives just fine.

What's wrong with harnessing the social compact to effect collective defense? That job is just too big for the cops- there aren't enough of them to occuply every square yard of every city. We all honor the social compact and take care of each other just fine each day. Why can't we defend each other in public as well?

'No Drunk Driving' signs do not keep threats off the road. So why call in a drunk driver? Isn't it to protect yourself and other people? Is it right to take away your phone because it's the job of the police to stop drunk drivers? Since that's the job of the cops, you don't NEED your phone.

Post a sign that reads, 'Nobody misuse guns!!!', which only the law abiding comply with; the sign does much to assist criminals, and much to hinder their victims.

[john donathon]

55. Answer me this

suppose a situation broke out in a crowd full of people, then some crazy guy starts shooting at everyone he can see, one at a time. Do you think the situation would be better if
A. Nobody else in the entire crowd had a gun to stop him, or
B. If a few people in a crowd had a gun and tried everything they could to stop him?

[jody]

58. "many [LEO] lack training necessary to not make things worse." Over 840K LEO n/t

[jeepnstein]

59. I am.

I've had active shooter training. It's not like you see on TV, which is as close as most people come to thinking about such things. I'll venture to say that if the average firearm owner had the presence of mind to know when to shoot they would do just as well. That's the key. You have to know when to shoot. Hitting the target is the easy part.

Yes, I've even worked along side a Secret Service detail. And as far as that goes, take a look at the video of Hinkley shooting Reagan some time. You'll notice Hinkley doesn't get shot. Ever wonder why?

[ileus]

69. I carry with my CHP but I'd be real weary....

Of trying to stop a shooting or a crime of any type that wasn't threatening me or my immediate family.

1. Like with the Arizona shooting if you respond it's easy to be mistaken for the shooter.

2. Liability...if you start shooting you'd better be accurate with so many people in the background and foreground.

3. I'm not LEO, it's not my job to stop a crime.

I'm not the hero type...

[jody]

76. Excellent points all. Thanks for reminding us of unintended consequences. n/t

[slackmaster]

71. I've had some defensive handgun training. Quite a bit of class time was spent on shoot vs. no-shoot.

Every situation is unique and dynamic. The philosophy I was taught emphasizes avoiding any action that puts innocent bystanders at risk.

A regular citizen (non-LEO) carrying a weapon for self-defense is not a police officer. Police are protected from liability when they use their weapons in an active-shooter situation. A regular Joe Sixpack with a CCW permit is not.

[jody]

77. You & ileus make excellent points. Happy New Year! Is the SD Zoo worth visiting again?

:toast:

[slackmaster]

78. There have been some big upgrades since you saw it

Worth seeing IMO.

BTW I'm glad to see you are recovering well.

[Katya Mullethov]

80. Perhaps , just in this instance ,when they bring a gun-- you should bring a knife

I however , intend to hit them with my purse .

[pipoman]

83. I don't currently carry concealed

I did for 20 years as part of my job. Yes, I was trained for shooting in a business and in crowded areas. To write a complete dissertation of my training which was well over 100 hours won't work. The basic premise is to understand the surroundings, be aware of your background, shoot from a position which you are shooting upward, either from a knee or prone. Shooting upward puts your center of mass shot on an average person over the head of another average person standing 4-6 feet behind the target depending on the exact angle.

As a private citizen, I wouldn't take the shot unless it was obviously clear. I would be a great witness.

[guitar man]

85. You know

I never answered your original question which was "DU gun owners, are you trained to use your gun in a crowd in self defense?

My answers before were centered around how to stop the massacre no matter where the shooter was or who he was going after.

But in the context of your subject line, the answer is yes. Because if he turns and comes at me, then it becomes a matter of pure self defense and in that case I'm going to do what I've been trained to do and drop his ass before he shoots me if at all possible, crowd or no crowd.

I've already been shot once in my life and I don't want to get shot again. Unfortunately when I was shot before I wasn't packing or I could have dropped the guy before he shot me. That was 25 years ago and now when the weather gets cold and damp my left leg hurts like hell, still to this day. :(