A quick thought about 30.06 vs our government issued LTC license

[sugar land dave]

We are well-vetted members of society who the government has declared trusted enough to carry our firearms with us. If a business somewhere is unfortunate to have a mentally unstable person walk in the door with a suicide wish and the desire to take others with him, which business's really would not want an armed,vetted, licensed person on property to defend the innocent? From a point of logic, it is about the most dumb thing a business could do. They certainly are not going to spend their hard earned money on a significant number of security guards as most simply cannot afford it. They cannot even afford enough cashiers to keep their checkout registers manned.

My licensed concealed carry bothers shopping moms? Let's see how bothered they become when some dreg of society walks in, ignoring the no-gun signs, and starts blasting everyone around them. Will the moms be glad then that they kept all the honest law abiding gun owners out, while Bloomburg and company smiled and made sound bites on TV? As the moms are watching people be shot will they be thinking that the President will be using their names in another call to control the gun rights of law abiding citizens or will each mom be wishing that a law abiding citizen had ignored the signs that the shooter took as an invitation?

[baldeagle]

There is not doubt in my mind that there are some who will "be glad then that they kept all the honest law abiding gun owners out, while Bloomburg and company smiled and made sound bites on TV". I equally have no doubt that some "will be thinking that the President will be using their names in another call to control the gun rights of law abiding citizens".

As someone wisely posted recently on this board, we are not security professionals nor do we act as security professionals for businesses. So this argument should be dropped, because it is an invalid argument. There is no way we can guarantee that any time a store is attacked at least one LTC will be there to protect everyone. Furthermore, we cannot demand that LTC owners be required to do that. While some will bravely face fire to save others, some choose not to.

[stingeragent]

Honestly I'm with both of you. It can go either way. Irregardless of if a 30.06 sign is posted, a criminal is gonna do what they are gonna do. If a robbery happens in a business with no 30.06 sign posted, a CHL may save the day, they may not. However, if a 30.06 sign is posted, it's 100% a CHL isn't gonna save the day. I posted on the other thread about the legislative aspect of this, to the person suggesting it should be no 30.06 or metal detectors, but in the context this poster has put it, I think my thoughts are true. In the end all these signs really do is give up the chance that a CHL holder may save the day. It is by no means guaranteed you will be saved, but posting those signs does guarantee you won't be.

[hovercat]

Some people believe that the carnage would be worse, because your wildly un-aimed rounds would double the casualty count. And you will not be able to convince them otherwise.
Any thought to the contrary will be shouted down, since it might trigger uncomfortable thoughts.

[parabelum]

Having bullets zip by your face while cowering unarmed, at the mercy of some homicidal maniac who could care less about you or any sign, could indeed trigger some uncomfortable feelings.

[oljames3]

...
As someone wisely posted recently on this board, we are not security professionals nor do we act as security professionals for businesses. So this argument should be dropped, because it is an invalid argument. There is no way we can guarantee that any time a store is attacked at least one LTC will be there to protect everyone. Furthermore, we cannot demand that LTC owners be required to do that. While some will bravely face fire to save others, some choose not to.

Before I retired, my mission was to "destroy, neutralize, and suppress the enemy." I'm still a sheepdog, but my reality has changed. Now, my mission is to protect and defend my flock. I will do that first. I am not able to ride to the sound of the guns as I was once. Faced with a violent threat, I will react as I have trained, protecting mine and others as best I can.

[Abraham]

parabelum stated: "If a business somewhere is unfortunate to have a mentally unstable person walk in the door with a suicide wish and the desire to take others with him, which business's really would not want an armed,vetted, licensed person on property to defend the innocent?"

Your question for me is rather complicated.

I obtained my CHL/LTC for me and mine.

I did not get it to act as an adjunct police officer mandated to protect others outside my sphere of loved ones.

If me or mine was threatened with death, and in the course of saving them with my firearm, I happened to be able to save others, great, but I'm not going to risk myself as a matter of course.

I am not a police officer.

[Middle Age Russ]

Carrying a firearm as a licensed carrier simply allows me a force option I would not otherwise have to protect me and mine. IF the exercise of this option stops an evil-doer before harming others, so be it, but my primary responsibility is to my family. Until in the midst of a situation, I can't say what I might do in that situation, though.

The argument of the anti-gun folks regarding errant rounds has merit on its face but is a bit disingenuous if considered further. It is true that many errant rounds occur in engagements of gunfire -- I understand that around 4 out of 5 rounds fired by police do not find their intended target -- so their argument is that citizens should not have this force option. The argument falls apart, though, when they argue that law enforcement should be armed and presumably there always to protect them as it would seem that more officers with guns would introduce the same potential for a greater number of errant rounds that denying citizens the right to be armed would be meant to avoid.

If your duty or your choice is to carry a sidearm, training to the degree that you have means is essential to effectively placing shots where they can be effective. Training to perform under stress is part of this. Hitting targets on a static range with few time constraints is no analog to the situations you might face defending yourself, yet you remain accountable for every round you send.

[ispray]

Is there a site that list the incidences where a armed citizen saved his/her self or someone else by being armed?

[Tracker]

Is there a site that list the incidences where a armed citizen saved his/her self or someone else by being armed?

facebook active self protection and conceal nation. they regularly post news reports of armed citizens using their firearm in self defense

[sugar land dave]

...this argument should be dropped, because it is an invalid argument. There is no way we can guarantee that any time a store is attacked at least one LTC will be there to protect everyone. Furthermore, we cannot demand that LTC owners be required to do that. While some will bravely face fire to save others, some choose not to.

It is not a fallacious argument. It is an arguement based on a potential of a random outcome and the potential of that randomness acting as a possible deterent to location selection.

I am voicing my opinion in support of concealed carry options, and not criticizing, trolling, or supporting illegal behavior. For 10 years I have been slowly dying from chronic heart and kidney failure. During that time 90% of those that were diagnosed at the same time as I was, died. So I have fought a hard 10-year fight with two terminal incurable diseases; I do not want to fight other good guys on this forum over an opinion. Finally, at Christmas, I was miraculously healed and now have a healthy heart, healthy kidneys, and confused specialists. If GOD thought I was worthy of one of his miracles, who here really thinks I am not worthy of an opinion?

[chasfm11]

Some people believe that the carnage would be worse, because your wildly un-aimed rounds would double the casualty count. And you will not be able to convince them otherwise.
Any thought to the contrary will be shouted down, since it might trigger uncomfortable thoughts.

Our church is in the throes of considering signs right now. We have a child care function and the licensing agency for that function has recently sent out an email stating that it has always been the licensing agency's policy to prohibit concealed carry and even off duty LEO carry. Instead of focusing on how the church can deal with the license compliance issue, the conversation went down the path exactly as you described it - the license to carry holders would turn a simple event into a massacre of innocents with cross-fire. Their vivid imaginations are far more factual then any history and they dismiss any rational approach from LTC holders. We would simply go berserk in the heat of the moment.

[mojo84]

Is there a site that list the incidences where a armed citizen saved his/her self or someone else by being armed?

Try this site.
https://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/armed-citizen/

[sugar land dave]

Nice link Mojo84; thank you. The stories found there are what I am talking about. The more instances of citizen resistance to crime occurs, the more bad guys will fear the potential of resistance. It is not us who should be fearing antis, and antis should not be fearing us if they are thinking logically about defense rather than taking away protection.

[mojo84]

Here is another interesting piece. Haven't had a chance to read it all no but it may provide some good ammo when addressing anti gun nuts claims.

http://people.duke.edu/~gnsmith/articles/myths.htm

You will need to discern it's accuracy yourself before quoting or sharing.

http://people.duke.edu/~gnsmith/articles/myths.htm