USA Today Runs Concealed Carry Article By Retired Navy SEAL

[dwever]

"The Good Guy With A Gun Myth"

The 'good guy with a gun' myth: Column

 

[murphydog]

This article perpetuates the myth that deterrence = bullets flying. The presence (presumed or actual) of law-abiding citizens having concealed weapons has consistently led to less violent crime overall. 1-3 million defensive gun uses every year in the US, with a small percentage of discharging a weapon and an even smaller number of injuries.

I have great respect for the author's service but can't quite understand the elitist attitude, or how he decided what part of the Bill of Rights he chooses not to defend.

 

[RJJ 1971]

I don't have my carry permit (by my choice).
But I sure as hell don't blame who do, and want to protect themselves!
Think a lot of people aren't trying to be heroes in public. Just think they want to have their own assurance that they can to go out in public anymore.

 

[mcmaniac]

I agree that those trained in combat would have a much better chance to succeed in a gun battle. I don't agree that everyone else should concede to inevitable defeat and thus not even try.
I can only hope to never have to encounter such a baptism by fire, however, if that occasion should arise, I pray I can act honorably and responsibly. One never fully knows how they will react until called upon.

 

[snowman.45]

This article kind of sounds like the author subscribes to the old, "If you don't have my training, ...." When an armed citizen starts firing back at the bad guys, they usually run and others are saved. I'm not saying this is true in all situations with all armed citizens, but the requirements in most states usually includes some instruction on when it's good to use your firearms and when it's not.

 

[dwever]

I would respectfully suggest that an author having risked his life engaging in multiple gunfights is in rare air as an individual, and has experiences that most of us will never know first-hand. With or without agreeing with him, he has earned the right to speak as one who has to to the rest of us who haven't.

 

[STCM(SW)]

So, the grandma who owned the jewelry store who chased five bad guys who were robbing her store and all ran into each other running out of the store while she kept firing her .380 at them must have been a Seal in a previous life then.....

 

[.455_Hunter]

I would respectfully suggest that an author having risked his life engaging in multiple gunfights is in rare air as an individual, and has experiences that most of us will never know first-hand. With or without agreeing with him, he has earned the right to speak as one who has to to the rest of us who haven't.

Sorry- Anybody who has hitched his wagon to the Gabby Giffords campaign has lost all credibilty on the issue, ex- Senior Enlisted SEAL or not.

I don't think that anybody disagrees that "Joe CCW" probably won't be a high-speed and tactical as the E8 who wrote the article, but that should not matter. Even a .22 deringer fired into the terrorist's torso as he walks up to execute you in the head is 1000X better than "Please don't kill me!".

 

[gunnails]

All respects to Senior Chief Hatch, I'm grateful for his service.
I agree with his points about the horrible odds taking on a terrorist or other mass shooter armed with a semi auto rifle when all you have is a sidearm. but you work with what you have.

San Bernadino terrorists made quick work of there shooting, but they did not seem like battled grizzled vets. Who knows how they would of acted if some one was firing back at them from the get go.

Seems like most of the mass shooters are going after targets of opportunity in no gun zones where they are unlikely to meet much initial resistance. Cowards they be. Send some rounds there way, better then being slaughtered. Who knows there gun may jam, are just maybe you are good enough.

 

[Sconnie]

Sorry- Anybody who has hitched his wagon to the Gabby Giffords campaign has lost all credibilty on the issue, ex- Senior Enlisted SEAL or not.

I don't think that anybody disagrees that "Joe CCW" probably won't be a high-speed and tactical as the E8 who wrote the article, but that should not matter. Even a .22 deringer fired into the terrorist's torso as he walks up to execute you in the head is 1000X better than "Please don't kill me!".

Actually I wish I could put in two likes. One for each point.

 

[Sconnie]

I didn't plan on defending this guy, but where the heck has he called for gun control in any form in his article or even hinted you shouldn't be allowed to defend yourself or others?

The article says: "Senior Chief Petty Officer James Hatch (USN, Ret.) is the founder of Spikes K9 Fund and a member of Veterans for Responsible Solutions." Click the link for Veterans for Responsible Solutions.

And make your own mind up. He is right that it would be a hard thing for the average person to deal with much less succeed. On the other hand, average Joes went into action on Flight 93 and saved lives on the ground at the intended target.

And this bears repeating.

Even a .22 deringer fired into the terrorist's torso as he walks up to execute you in the head is 1000X better than "Please don't kill me!".

 

[.455_Hunter]

I didn't plan on defending this guy, but where the heck has he called for gun control in any form in his article or even hinted you shouldn't be allowed to defend yourself or others?

He states, "I am a proud Navy combat veteran. I risked and nearly gave my life in dozens of combat situations in defense of our Constitution. I value the Second Amendment and the right of responsible Americans to own guns for self-defense."

Then why is he a member of " Veterans for Responsible Solutions"?

"... If you are a veteran, please consider joining Veterans for Responsible Solutions today. As a member you will help Gabby and Mark find common sense solutions that both protect our 2nd amendment rights and reduce gun violence in America..."

Just more common sense...

I wonder if USA Today would run a counter point article by another SEAL who promotes CCW? I think I already know the answer.

 

[Capt.Jim]

Would you guys like to hear the opinion of a Combat Veteran Navy sniper who served in NATO forces during Desert Storm and was in charge of U.S. Air Force Base security in the Middle East before the war?

I've heard a "Yes", so here's my answer.

Trust me it is not that easy to walk around casually, aim and shoot at your targets successfully when you're under fire. Especially in close quarters.
This condition is valid for all humans, even for terrorists!

One has to remember that these bad guys are also not trained professionals.

So I don't know why it is assumed that in any of these circumstances those ordinary CCW people in the crowd will be facing these crazed gunman or terrorists who have a Jedi-master like expertise with their guns?

Most of them do not even know how to clear a jammed gun! We saw this with the idiot on the train and the other one in front of the restaurant in Paris.

You're right to remember that old lady in jewelry store who shot two rounds and 5 thugs with guns ran away like cartoon characters by toppling each other.

Why and how come that happened?
Well refer the answer written in bold at above paragraph!

In any case what situation would you like to find yourself in?

a) Facing two terrorist in a room filled with 50 unarmed people, or...

b) Facing two terrorist in a room filled with 43 unarmed and 7 CCW friends?

I don't know you guys but my choice will be the latter!

 

[Kanewpadle]

How convenient it is that he left out so much. Probably because he is just another military serviceman who thinks he knows a thing or two about concealed carry and the man behind the gun.

If more people were armed an active shooter could face not one but several concealed carriers willing and able to take them on. They could work together or separately to eliminate the threat.

And it is common knowledge that many active shooters give up or take their own life when confronted.

We are not a nation of highly trained high speed low drag individuals. Neither were our fore fathers. We are a nation of mostly good men willing and brave enough to confront evil and defeat it.

Doesn't take a Navy Seal to figure that out.

 

[Kanewpadle]

Sorry- Anybody who has hitched his wagon to the Gabby Giffords campaign has lost all credibilty on the issue, ex- Senior Enlisted SEAL or not.

I don't think that anybody disagrees that "Joe CCW" probably won't be a high-speed and tactical as the E8 who wrote the article, but that should not matter. Even a .22 deringer fired into the terrorist's torso as he walks up to execute you in the head is 1000X better than "Please don't kill me!".

Well said. But more importantly, it's true.

 

[F75gunslinger]

The point to be taken here , IMO , is that he sees a concealed carry civilian as another threat to the general populace of any given room. Period. You can't say that you support the second amendment , and then say that the average gun owner would do more harm than good. Would it be better if there were a team of retired SEALs in the room ? Of course it would. But the San Bernardino shooting was only 2 shooters. Many are only one shooter. I'd rather have one or two people proficient in the use of their firearm in there with me, as opposed to everyone being unarmed.

There are many in the police and military field that feel that civilians with guns are a joke. So it isn't hard to find one ( expecially if he's hooked up with a group of anti-gunners like this guy is ) to speak out and pound the podium with his disdain for the average CCW civilian.

I worked for Fed-Ex Freight for a year or so, and one day they had us sit down to watch a video. Basically the don't fight if someone comes in with a gun, run and hide or get out of the building type ****. Makes me sad to think that this is what corporate America is selling to the masses these days. Gone are the days of people standing up for themselves and defending each other. It's all about "convenience" and " security " today.

 

[BC38]

And there for a second I thought that since it mentioned the opinion of a SEAL team member this thread was going to be about a surprising "counterpoint" article being published in a national paper. You know, one that might dare to go against the major media's anti-gun stance.

Instead I find that it is an article about a SEAL who takes the position that only professional soldiers like him could/should/would be able to be effective in opposing a terrorist attack. What was I thinking? It was published in USA Today.

Of course he has the right to express his opinion. He even has the right to try to add some kind of credibility to the Gifford organization. Even though giving credibility to that group is a lost cause, and it is so extremely disappointing to see a former SEAL attempting to lend them the credibility of the military.

 

[Capt.Jim]

We became a weird society unfortunately.

Nowadays when a senior citizen getting a beating in the middle of the day at a busy street, you can find at least 10 people taking their phones out and recording it instead of getting together and saving the old man.

On the one hand we continuously promote NOT to do anything at any bad situation and comply with the aggressors while at the same time we celebrate the people who did not listen this advice and got out of their ways and DID something to stop a bad situation and call them "Heroes".

But also we punish the same kind of behavior for some others who acted bravely and after even winning against the aggressors by calling their actions were "stupid" and "not recommended"!

What happened to the "home of the brave" ?

Unfortunately in todays world it's not strange to see a Navy Seal's article labeled as " good guy with a gun' myth " rather than seeing an article labeled " bad guy with a gun' reality "..

 

[petepeterson]

I agree with one thing he said:

It's a lot harder to shoot folks when they're shooting back.

Was there more to the article? I kinda skimmed it...

 

[manyguns]

I think we can see a bit about the mindset of active shooters by the targets they prefer. GUN FREE ZONES!