TexasCHLforum.com

The discussion of the USCCA Concealed Carry Expo reminded me of a conversation that a buddy and I sometimes toss around.

At what point could a large LTC population become a bit of a liability to the LTC population? There is no real right or wrong answer. Just an interesting mental exercise.

Scenarios at the extreme ends of hte spectrum for discussions sake:
Small-ish LTC population --
Today, if a self defense scenario occurs in a restaurant, you are statistically guaranteed that you are probably the only person in there with a firearm. When you draw, most folks in the place will know who the attacker is and who the defender is in fairly short order. The number of firearms in play would likely be very small. i.e. yours and the attacker's (potentially).

Large-ish LTC population --
If everyone carried, as we sometimes espouse as the answer to crime; if and when a robbery/attack were to happen at a restaurant it could get really sketchy really quick after the third or fourth or fifth pistol comes out. Not everyone will have seen the attack begin. So some LTC are now going to be trying really hard to get caught up quickly. Knowing that your reaction time may mean the difference between life and death, do you unholster when the shooting starts? Do you only unholster when you are positively sure that you know what is going down? Do you know who is a white hat and who might be black hat accomplices? Is there a tipping point where innocents might potentially start shooting other innocents?

I am not convinced that in real life everyone would be as disciplined as the folks in this video

Hmm... I see your point about the “large-ish” population. I know my wife’s nephew (FBI agent) told me a while back that he usually carried when flying and I think it was even a requirement if it was related to work. Not sure about that. Anyway, there was a process he had to go through to make sure he and any potential air marshals on the plane knew which seats they were in. That way, if something went down they wouldn’t jump up and shoot each other while trying to determine who the bad guy is.

mot7981 wrote:Anyway, there was a process he had to go through to make sure he and any potential air marshals on the plane knew which seats they were in. That way, if something went down they wouldn’t jump up and shoot each other while trying to determine who the bad guy is.

On the serious side, the Air Marshal and other LEO in a plane is a great example.

On the less serious side, quit advocating for the CHL Tiara!!! :-)

I don't think that even in a high LTC saturated situation, that everyone would suddenly draw, and begin firing, at others with guns in their hands. The large majority of people, are still going to seek cover, or a means of egress, for themselves and their families. I think that most of them will assess the situation, and only fire if the threat appears to be directed towards them, or their families.

It is an interesting question, but, statistics have shown that attacks, especially in public, have been decreasing proportionally, with increase of lawful carry, so I don't see that changing, and as our numbers increase I believe attacks will decrease. JMHO

Jusme wrote:I don't think that even in a high LTC saturated situation, that everyone would suddenly draw, and begin firing, at others with guns in their hands. The large majority of people, are still going to seek cover, or a means of egress, for themselves and their families. I think that most of them will assess the situation, and only fire if the threat appears to be directed towards them, or their families.

It is an interesting question, but, statistics have shown that attacks, especially in public, have been decreasing proportionally, with increase of lawful carry, so I don't see that changing, and as our numbers increase I believe attacks will decrease. JMHO

To be clear, I in no way think we are approaching saturation and I do NOT want to appear to be advocating for less carry. The saturation point, if there even is one, would be millions and millions of folks from where we are now.

I guess I just wonder if everyone would consider gun fire in the restaurant as primarily not directed at them. We have discussed before that once a robber has communicated the threat, and we believe it to be a valid threat, action can be taken by an LTC/CHL. We don't have to wait to be swept by the muzzle to feel that the threat is directed at us.

Also to be clear, I appreciate the response. Definitely not trying to make a debate. Just discussing. There is no real right answer as we'd never likely see it happen. _And_ if the build up is slow as it has been, I suspect we would all slowly adjust.

I suspect you'd be safe as long as your pants aren't down around your knees.

Could be a good argument for a shoulder holster rig

If everyone who qualified had an LTC and carried, there'd be no attacks in restaurants and other public places. That whole "armed society is a polite society" thing......

I would say that we were at the saturation point when our statistics start dropping.

The Annoyed Man wrote:If everyone who qualified had an LTC and carried, there'd be no attacks in restaurants and other public places. That whole "armed society is a polite society" thing......

How often do "cop bars" get robbed? It would likely be the same frequency for every other place if over half of the population carried. Well except for free fire zones (30.06 posted businesses). Those would get robbed ALOT.

Reminds me of the bar scene in "Code of Silence".

We've all heard about the problem with statistics.

In OC reports thread I described being in a Schlotzsky's not long ago when two different guys came in OCing, while I was CCing. There were probably 10-12 other customers also there besides us.

I think there was a thread on here somewhere about what happened to the crime map in some city in Florida when the NRA convention came to town. Massive decrease in crime because even the criminals had enough sense to realize they stood a much better chance of encountering armed resistance that week. If there were so many armed people in Texas that criminals knew they stood a very good chance of getting shot if they tried anything, well, um, I don't know, they'd all move to California?

sbrawley wrote:

LucasMcCain wrote:I think there was a thread on here somewhere about what happened to the crime map in some city in Florida when the NRA convention came to town. Massive decrease in crime because even the criminals had enough sense to realize they stood a much better chance of encountering armed resistance that week. If there were so many armed people in Texas that criminals knew they stood a very good chance of getting shot if they tried anything, well, um, I don't know, they'd all move to California?

Nah, they'll just start focusing on 30.06 locations.

Obviously I was joking, but your reply does bring up another interesting point. If the carrying population was a "large-ish" percentage of the total, I don't think you'd see very many 30.06 locations left. Once a "large-ish" percentage of the population stops giving you business, you either recognize it and take the signs down or you go out of business.