Wednesday, September 7, 2011

More on the Foolishness of CCW Guys Intervening

Just Another Blog (From L.A.)™: Second Amendment Round-Up had something to say about the Nevada shooting.

Swagler said he had a handgun and considered opening fire on the shooter, but he didn't want to engage a gunman who was armed with a fully automatic weapon. 

Well, the answer to that is to issue full-auto penisesguns to every citizen. An armed society is always polite, after all. 

I saw this at Alternate Brain, who had this to say:

If you listen to the NRA, you'd think the answer to crime prevention would be for everyone to be armed. Fine. Then how come people, when in a position to maybe stop a crime, don't? If you have the time to watch him reload, you have the time to take a shot - only takes one. Ain't no point in having it if you don't use it when you need to, pussy.


  1. One of the things I differ on compared to the standard pro-gun talking points is the issue of CCW to stop spree shooters. I don’t like the concept of portraying something intended for personal self-defense as being for public protection. It is for individual protection only (and their family)- and states should adopt shall issue policy because the respect and trust their citizens, not as an answer to spree shootings.

    In this case, the carrier has no obligation to intervene and put himself at risk. However, being on the scene means that he could very easily been the target of the shooter. Had the shooter turned his weapon on that citizen, you bet your behind he is better off with that gun so as having the option to return fire (still not necessarily the best option depending on how far away he is, and what type of cover or escape routes are available). Whatever the case, shooting back is a better option than cowering in fear. Not to say some armed people wouldn’t freeze in fear, but it is not by choice.

    If we want to talk about hyperbole spread in the debate, again we can use this case to dismiss rantings by the gun control side. So again, there was a person with a gun on the scene. Again, they evaluated the situation and chose not to fire their gun. So there was no person pulling out their own gun and wildly firing random shots that kill a bunch more innocent people, only to have the police show up and kill the CCW holder because for some reason he did not drop his gun. Didn’t happen. What we did have was someone who responsibly carries a weapon and came extremely close to needing to use it. Bet he feels better about having that gun on him than wearing a meter helmet.

    Finally, let’s not forget about your recent post where a Louisiana CCW holder did engage a man who walked into a restaurant and opened fire. He took a bullet for intervening, but only one person was killed by the madman. Maybe he didn’t have to do that- but how quickly you forget (or rather never acknowledge in the first place).

  2. I wonder if the gunman had walked into Mr. Swagler's store if he would have tried to shoot the attacker then?

  3. thanks TS. I agree with you. My post is really aimed at those macho braggarts among your gun friends, not you.

  4. So, the armed citizen has no responsibility to protect his fellow unarmed citizens? Hmmm, that well regulated militia thing just got a whole lot narrower in its definition.

  5. There are many reasons why or why not to engage an attacker. Some carry to protect themselves if have to and some will risk their own life to save some one else. Either way, we need a lot more carriers.

    1. You forgot the ones who fancy themselves judge and jury of the others' behavior. And how about the vigilante justice guys.

      Among concealed carry folks, like all other large groups, you've got all kinds, including the unfit and dangerous.