Pink Pistols: How About ‘Designated Carrier’ Like Designated Driver?


The Pink Pistols, an international organization dedicated to the legal, safe, and responsible use of firearms for self-defense of the sexual-minority community, offered a strong gun-rights message after the nightclub attack in Orlando — and one specific proposal that makes a lot of sense.

In a June 12 release, the group said, “Early Sunday, around 2 a.m. Eastern Time, the Pulse nightclub in Orlando was attacked by an armed individual. Approximately 50 persons were killed and over double that wounded when the attacker, whom police have identified as Omar Mateen, a 29-year-old from Fort Pierce, FL, pushed his way into the club and opened fire on patrons.” Mateen died on the scene.

“It appears he was organized and well-prepared,” said Orlando Police Chief John Mina at a news conference on Sunday.

Additionally, Orange County Sheriff Jerry Demings said, “This is an incident … that we certainly classify as a domestic terror incident.” Authorities say the FBI is involved. Preliminary information reveals that Omar Mateen’s family is from Afghanistan, though Mateen may have been born in the United States.

Gwendolyn Patton, First Speaker of the Pink Pistols, said, “This is exactly the kind of heinous act that justifies our existence. At such a time of tragedy, let us not reach for the low-hanging fruit of blaming the killer’s guns. Let us stay focused on the fact that someone hated gay people so much they were ready to kill or injure so many. A human being did this. The human being’s tools are unimportant when compared to the bleakness of that person’s soul. I say again, GUNS did not do this. A human being did this, a dead human being. Our job now is not to demonize the man’s tools, but to condemn his acts and work to prevent such acts in the future.”

Patton’s concerns are that knee-jerk gun-control efforts may make preventing future events harder rather than easier, as only the law-abiding potential victims will be affected by such laws.

“It is difficult, if not impossible, to foresee such an event,” said Patton, “but if they cannot be prevented, then they must be stopped as fast as someone tries to start them.”

Some bars and other establishments that serve alcohol are difficult to protect because many states forbid the carrying of weapons where alcohol is served.

Patton offered an interesting solution: She said, just as one might have a designated driver who stays sober, one might have a “designated carrier” with a concealed-carry permit who goes armed and does not drink.

“It’s sad that we must consider such things, but when there are persons out there who mean us harm, we must find ways to protect ourselves within the law,” Patton said.

Is the Designated Carrier a workable idea? Let us hear your thoughts on the idea.

32 thoughts on “Pink Pistols: How About ‘Designated Carrier’ Like Designated Driver?”

  1. Excellent idea. I would suggest the use of the term “Designated Defender instead.

    Whatever the name, the important part is to put in place a standard and procedure for Designated Defenders that is as known and understood as Designated Drivers. Such a program will stop or lessen the impact of the increasing number of terror attacks in a way that has been proven to be successful in previous mass attacks, from both terrorists and psychos.

  2. This may be the stupidest thing I have read today. There was an armed guard at the Pulse, a trained law enforcement officer. Yet he was unable to stop the gunman. And you think an untrained individual can do better?? What happens when the ‘Designated Carrier’ gets in a gun fight and kills or injures someone? Who is liable then? The ‘Pink Pistols?’ The ‘Designated Carrier?’ The club owner? I’m thinking all three.

    1. Because a “trained ” armed guard was on duty doesn’t mean he was in a position to take action in a crowed room! Perhaps one of the designated defenders would be in close proximity and able to stop the carnage. In any event why have an armed guard since this “trained” guard was not effective? Perhaps if gun free zones disappear and more people exercise their constitutional rights mass shootings would become less likely.

    2. Are you kidding me…who’s liable would be way down on my
      concerned list. I would deal with that later. I would much rather
      deal with stopping the gunman and being armed than worry about a potential liable lawsuit and be unarmed and defenseless.

    3. One armed guard who had been scouted and therefore Known by the terr and had to be eliminated as a threat Before proceeding, so the terr did just that! An armed citizen (or several in this case) could NOT be known in advance and therefore has the benefit of surprise.
      As to who gets sued, the Plaintiffs Bar will sue everyone in sight because that’s what they do. It’s up to the jury to “dismiss with prejudice” Everyone except the shooter!

      1. Well said and amen! When you are in a fight for your own life, you shouldn’t be worried about what the lawyers might or might not think up. This country has gone downhill due to class action suits and people who say they are offended over nothing.

    4. A dozen ‘Designated Carriers’ would be quite a deterrent to a single gunman. Especially, when the gunman doesn’t know which are armed and which aren’t. Almost like street thugs having to gamble if their prey is a concealed carrier or not.

    5. Good point and deserves careful consideration as well as public education in high risk cities in how to react when shots are fired to help identify the shooter. Carrying a weapon is not care free and there are many things to always be aware of. It’s not for most civilians. It requires discipline, respect and active training. This is a prto-active resolution to minimize casualties and pro-active is what is required for several reasons the primary reason being these cowards like most opportunistic predictors don’t prey on armed people. You don’t read about them attacking at a gun show or on the range.

    6. Roger,
      If you’re an American, I bet you voted for Obama. That’s not supposed to be an insult, just a pointer to your outlook on things.

      After the Pulse shootings and Trumps reaction, Obama got on national TV and said that having someone else in the club that was armed and able to engage the shooter “makes absolutely no sense at all” or something very close to that. My reaction to that statement was, WHAT??? That statement made absolutely no sense. Everyone is ultimately responsible for their own life, and to be denied any effective means of doing that is, well, unconstitutional. Remember, that the government and the police, no matter how well intentioned, have no legal obligation to protect you personally. How’s that look liability wise?

      There’s also the matter of timeliness. One of my favorite slogans in trying to point out the backwardness of your sort of views on self defense is that “when seconds count, the police are only minutes away”. Get it?

      From your statement, it would appear that you would be much more concerned with the liabilities of possible outcomes of someone attempting to defend their life and the lives of 49 others than the possibility that such a person might actually have made a positive difference to the ensuing unopposed carnage. Really?

      You say that there was an off duty LEO (Law Enforcement Officer) there who was unable to stop the madman cold. No surprise really, especially if said LEO had any concern for his own life. How might it have gone if there was at least one other person inside the club that had a weapon? Two against one is a 100% increase in the possibility of saving at least a few more innocent lives. I’d take those odds.

      You also ask if an “untrained individual” could have done any better than the LEO. Well, let me tell you… This would be a good time to educate you on a few things. When you get a chance, google up “sheeple vs sheepdog”. Also would recommend you poke around in various state laws concerning concealed carry qualifications and laws.

      I’ll leave the “sheeple” for you to discover on your own, but as to Concealed Carry regulations, most states require a permit applicant to take at least some level of training to qualify for a CC license. Many folks that carry practice occasionally. Some participate in competitions replicating, at least to some extent, conditions in a combat situation, such as seeking concealment or cover (more things to look up) and aiming as effectively as possible under some stress. Some may be active or ex LEO’s or combat hardened vets who have lots of experience with active shooting. Who’s to know.

      Another difference between a CC permit holder and “sheeple” is that of mindset. That’s related to the “sheepdog”. Read up a bit on self defense/survival mindset. Might save your life someday.

      To address another apparent misconception that I’ve seen stated or alluded to in the media and by aspiring politicians is that they apparently assume (ass-u-me) that folks packing a sidearm would be just part of the wild party crowd. Now that’s possible, but one of the laws governing CC is that one is prohibited from carrying a weapon while under the influence of intoxicating substances. It has been shown by crime statistics (look it up) that CC license holders are some of the most law abiding folks in the country. In fact CC permit holders are credited with being involved in fewer firearms related crimes that LEO’s. I have the utmost respect for our LEO’s and I didn’t make this up.

      This brings me around to the point that the above Pink Pistols article that you ridicule as “the stupidest thing you have read today”. I would suggest that the concepts of the article, of having not only designated drivers but designated defenders, makes all the sense in the world and would indeed be very smart rather than stupid. In fact, this brings around the general problem with any “Gun Free” zone. “Gun Free Zone” equals a target rich, risk free, for a while at least, shooting gallery for any madperson, to satisfy their twisted desires on adults or children who have no immediate hope of effective self defense. When seconds count, the average response time by LEO’s is about nine minutes. They get there as fast as they can, and nine minutes is impressively fast, but…….
      Would you rather the teacher at a school, a person at the office or the bartender or the person sitting or standing right next to you have a potentially effective means of stopping or at least slowing down (mitigating in government speak) someone who would otherwise have their way with you and yours, or not? Really!

      Personally, I would rather be shot by someone in the process of trying to save my life than by an unopposed mad-person or persons. It seem you would rather sit there and just be killed rather than try to do something about it. Good luck with that philosophy. I do hope you will think about the possibilities in our imperfect world and reconsider.

      1. WD, there are so many things you don’t seem to understand.

        First, if you shoot someone who is not attacking you, you are liable, even if you were trying to defend yourself from another person.

        The police weren’t minutes away. They were on the scene, although ineffective.

        While you make a big deal about the presumed effectiveness of an armed civilian, there has not been a single instance where an armed civilian stopped a mass shooter.

        You said it was not surprising that the off-duty cop didn’t stop the gunman, yet you opined that the armed civilian would have been able to do what the trained cop couldn’t. Not bloody likely.

        I am quite up to date on concealed carry laws and the training that is required to obtain a concealed carry permit. If you think a couple of hours of classroom lecture, followed by a simple, anyone-can-pass quiz and poking a few holes in paper targets somehow qualifies one to take on an active shooter then you’re the sheeple. I spent several years competing in IPSC and IDPA. There is a HUGE difference between shooting at cardboard targets that don’t shoot back and trying to take down an active shooter. One of the main differences is the active shooter plans to die while you’re trying to stay alive. This puts you at a disadvantage.

        Let me suggest some reading for you: Everything written by Massad Ayoob. Also, watch all of his YouTube videos. Then come back and tell me how you would be the hero in one of these situations.

      2. Roger-You’ve been getting your info from the anti gun crowd. Go Google “concealed carry holder stops mass shooting, and pick any one of the myriad of instances that it has happened. Just because the liberal propaganda machine ( What we used to call “The Press” ) doesn’t report it doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen. It just doesn’t fit their agenda, so they don’t report it.

    7. The “trained” person at the door was shot first because he was known to be armed by the assailant and just because the might be questions about an idea does not make it stupid. Besides I would rather get sued than stand there like sheep and die without a chance to fight back

    8. Mateen knew of this single armed guard so Mateen knew where the resistance would come from and this single armed guard was accounted for.
      What Mateen and any other terrorist or crazy person bent on high casualty violence cannot account for is an armed patron or patrons.
      If an armed patron/s would have been in a bathroom when the shooting started and stuck in their with unarmed patrons the element of surprise is in the favor of the armed patron because Mateen would throw any caution to the wind because in Mateen’s mind all of the armed resistance has been dealt with and he has free will to inflict all of the damage he wants to inflict
      The armed patron knows the killer will be in shortly and when the killer walks in with his firearm at low ready or relaxed then BOOM the armed patron gives the killer a fine welcome

      I would rather be armed, and caught in a shootout/slaughter like what happened at the Pulse than a one way slaughterhouse where the rescue is staged up outside getting important information and drawing up their plan
      Another thing Mr Roger Whiteaker, it sounds as though you would rather have the killer walk around at a leisurely pace killing everyone instead of the killer meeting an armed resistance and the killer having to concentrate on the resistor while giving other victims an opportunity to escape the carnage
      Any particular reason you are more concerned for the well being of a crazy murderous terrorist instead of innocent victims?

    9. That trained guard left his post rather than stand and fight. He left those poor folks to die. So yes people can do much better.

  3. Every reasonable Sheriff in Florida would tell you that the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun, regardless of who it is. Obviously trained in active shooter scenarios would be better. You will never get bad guys to give up their guns, so making the rest of us defenseless is a ridiculous idea. Orlando was a religious attack, not a gun control issue.

  4. Only a good person or persons with guns could make a difference in a set up like this . A perp would think twice before trying to do this kind of thing if he thought there was a good chance that there was people armed . These butt holes are looking for soft targets.

  5. “….a “designated carrier” with a concealed-carry permit who goes armed and does not drink.” That would only be possible, after these “gun free (killing) zone” laws are rescinded!

    Everyone should pound their esteemed, elected representative’s desks demanding these idiotic, false security, gun free zone laws be eliminated! Show them the chart, below, as an example of the number of lives to be “potentially” saved:


    1. Some of my family members, me and many friends have been doing the designated driver/carrier for around 4 years now.
      Well we have been doing it ever since Ohio made bar carry legal in 2011 I believe
      I volunteered being the DD/C the first minute that it was legal, I was DD up until 11:58 PM or so, went outside and slipped my pistol into my IWB holster and at 12:00AM I became the designated driver/carrier

  6. Gun Free Zones, No Guns signs at establishments are invitation to the peeps or terrorists to come and have a shooting gallery good time. Why would an establishment tell a law abiding citizen he or she can not exercise their 2nd amendment right to defend theirselves, their loved ones, and others around them. That is stupid ! The law should say “If an establishment renders you helpless and denies your 2nd Amendment right to defend and protect yourself because it says it is a “gun free zone” then that Establishment should certainly have trained and armed security. If you were hurt or even killed in that Establishment then that Establishment should be held liable for your safety or loss of life. Bottom line it should be against the law to call any place “Gun Free” without Police protection or highly trained Security Guards in place. Desolve the silly “Gun Free” law and let good people Conceal Carry and protect and defend. The 2nd Amendment guarantees it from God that all people should be free and able to protect them selves. Try it, the cowards will leave. Aim small, miss small. Randy H

  7. The reason no one ever hears about a good guy with a gun stopping a mass shooting is because the mass shooting never happens. There have been several cases where this has taken place over the past several years. The liberal community doesn’t want you to hear about it so all the news stations do not cover them because it will not make them money. I myself conceal carry everyday no matter where I go to protect me and my family and anyone else who needs protection.

  8. What will most likely happen is everyone with a gun will start shooting at each other. Guns don’t save people either. Planning does. Tactics are key elements of a plan. Arming people without the proper training and the conditioning to go for the kill when faced with an attacker is a recipe for a “friendly fire” disaster.

    1. Funny how you – think anyone who doesn’t agree with your – is a troll. Of course, you’re so wedded to the bulls*** put out by the NRA that you cannot think for yourselves.

      1. You sir are delusional. You disregard what people say in their posts and scream “WE’RE ALL GONNA DIE OR BE SUED” and “Dumb NRA, stupid NRA, blah blah blah”
        If you can’t see the difference in an armed patron/s that is inside the building and cops showing up within minutes, lights and sirens going off and and taking heavy fire at the expected point of ingress then I have to think that you learned your tactical “Prowess” from the Cub Scouts
        You sound like the typical commie liberal just parroting what your jug eared mocha Jesus says in order to get the gun owners to agree to “Nonsensical Gun Laws” and dear leader should call it what it is and that is “Gun Confiscation” nationwide
        I am sure that if your comrades win the election in the fall you and your fellow America hating metrosexuals will be the first in line to turn your firearms in.

      2. Actually Roger, I found people who like the idea of concealed carry can do their own research, and see the beneficial effects on the crime rate, especially violent crime. You can go to the FBI Crime Statistics page and go back through historical data and see a direct correlation between States starting a CCW program and the reduced crime. Also, the number of guns have increased by almost 90% in the last 20 years, while violent crime has dropped by 50% over that same period. Don’t take my word, go to the FBI Stats site and see for yourself. Also, if you take out suicides and gang-related shootings ( hardly “accidental” ) our rate drops to the same or lower than all those countries that the anti gun crowd likes to flaunt.

      3. I think that one can agree with these two assertions. First, it is a good idea to research several data sources on the effect of CCW on crime over time. Second, the FBI will reveal that the number of guns has increased while violent crime has decreased. Having had the experience of leading green troops in combat I can tell you that as well trained as they may be, if not paired with a wise and hardened trooper they are a liability. Meaning well as they do, untested armed people in a crowded social venue will only add to the mayhem.

      4. “Meaning well as they do, untested armed people in a crowded social venue will only add to the mayhem.”


      5. This is your one, and only, warning. We don’t mind the dissenting opinions. We DO mind the language, as well as personal attacks on other commenters. We’ve also warned other posters about attacks on you. Discussion is great, and healthy. We won’t let it devolve into attacks.

Leave a Reply