CHL and Vigilantes

[firefox]

Is it me , or do many chl holders have an affinity to engage in firearm combat when it's avoidable. For example, witnessing a store robbery and reaching for their firearm. I read one article where a couple guys were checking on a house (housesitting) for some friends, when they found that intruders were occupying it. They then proceeded to go in *swat* style, pistols ready. Does this make any sense?!? I would have called 911 and left it at that.

I just thought the rule with handgun ownership was to not do anything you wouldn't do without a gun. Just because we have the power of a gun, does not always mean it should be used. Wouldn't you agree that the only time a weapon should be drawn would be in an immediate life-threatening situation?
What would happen if you got in a bar fight (adrenaline pumping and all) and you were just getting your ass kicked. Would you pull out a firearm? What about a carjacking? The thief probably just wants to take the car to a chop-shop and by pulling a gun (they would probably shoot - leaving both of you dead)... just something to think about.

[Sir William]

Odd. If you call 911, expect to be put on hold. Recently I drove up on a car fire. I called 911. I was put on hold. I also have been too close to a few bad drug deals that went violent. I gave up on 911 being an emergency help number. I don't go looking for trouble. If it comes my way, I am prepared. The bar? I don't hang out in bars. I don't carry in bars if I do go out with friends. I don't see myself as Hondo or even a flawed hero. I have been able to handle MOST things with a look or a knockdown fist punch. If it comes down to it, I won't be a vigilante. I will be a living survivor. I can always leave. If more people had enough sense to leave, there would be few problems. GOA is better than DOA.

[LAK]

Wouldn't you agree that the only time a weapon should be drawn would be in an immediate life-threatening situation?

If an armed robbery is taking place in my presence I already consider my life threatened. There are many cases where I would likely take care of my own business before I picked up the telephone to call one of the investigative, reporting and custodial agencies. It all depends on the exact circumstances. I have had similar experiences to Sir William; your best protector is you.

[firefox]

I guess it depends on your jurisdiction how well 911 works. I would like to think that a call to 911 *still* is the right thing to do, unless your immediate life or loved one is in danger. How we define danger is another story altogether. If a BG was approaching you on the street, clearly unarmed (say shorts and shirtless, hands exposed) looking to pound you, does this justify pulling a firearm? I wonder... It's just that I seem to keep reading about how these ex-marine/veteran types with chl's, do things that look like vigilante justice to some degree. If I witnessed the mugging I would get the best description of the perpetrator in my head and call the police immediately, whereas some chl's would pull a gun. This IMHO would get you killed or in deep trouble. It's one thing to be a responsible chl and understand safety and how to use your weapon, but another thing when the SHTF.

We can be very well trained in the logic parts of carrying concealed, but what happens when someone punches your spouse in the face, breaking her nose? Adrenaline rush becomes a factor and thus (fight or flight). When a firearm is at your fingertips, are you more than likely to pull it? Or would you pull the gun out , empty the chamber and magazine , and roll up your sleeves.
Either way, you've pulled a weapon, and the outcome differs signifcantly. Both from a legal and situational standpoint.

The situation could very well get much worse. Worst of all, if you end up fist fighting the BG, he could get a hold of *your* weapon. Anyone have further thoughts or comments?

[firefox]

Lak, you make a valid point about taking matters in your own hands. Cops and laws do little to protect you, they just try to discourage and respond to crimes. However, it should be a last resort. If you observed a robbery in a building, and if they weren't executing hostages, do you make the situation worse by grabbing the 45? Perhaps, or rather most likely. Now if the robber is popping caps in skulls and you're next in line, then by all means you have a right to defend yourself. Nothing to lose at this point. Heck, after a single person had been pistol whipped, I would have *prepared* to engage, but certainly not draw . But, if they are grabbing the money and shoving it in bags for an apparent quick getaway, by pulling a weapon you have just further endangered the life of others as well as your own. A bad situation could become a massacre. This is what some might call the flaws vigilante justice. Police and tactical teams are trained in the psychological element of crimes in progress, but as chl holders we are not. We simply don't encounter enough scenarios and live/breathe criminal mentality to make the right decision. Again, if someone is chasing at you with an axe, it's pretty obvious what you should do. :)

[Hal]

Is it me , or do many chl holders have an affinity to engage in firearm combat when it's avoidable. It's just you. The vast majority of holders choose flight instead of fight as well as have a tendacy to walk the straight and narrow.

It's kind of a "duh".

Anyone can pack heat, card or no card. The responsible and law abiding choose to comply with the law, and get the licence. Whatever gives you the idea that after taking the steps necessary to get a licence, they all of a sudden go *badge happy* and all *james bond-licence-to-kill*?

A few isolated incidents don't give a true picture of what the other millions do.

That's like saying licenced drivers have an affinity to drive recklessly, based on reading a few stories about someone getting cited for speeding.

[joab]

Now if the robber is popping caps in skulls and you're next in line, then by all means you have a right to defend yourself. Nothing to lose at this point. Could you live with the fact that that first person died due to your inaction, when you had the means to stop the BG.
What if you or a family member are first in line. or they go in reverse order, or they do it randomly without respect to your position in line
Heck, after a single person had been pistol whipped, I would have *prepared* to engage, but certainly not drawAt that point, if you were simply preparing to engage, you would probabl be too dead to actually finish your draw.

I you are invloved in an armed robbery you are already at a disadvantag.
The BGs have entered the builing with at least some kind of plan and at least the expectation of a robbery. You have entered the building with a plan to buy a loaf of bread and a gallon of milk.
If you wait till the shooting starts to register that you are in a situation, you are at their mercy.

If you get the chance to end the threat before it escalates to pistol whipping and skull popping, do it. Worry about whether he was a kinder gentler scumbag later.

I read one article where a couple guys were checking on a house (housesitting) for some friends, when they found that intruders were occupying it. It was also stated in that article that the police were an hour (i believe) away and the two guys in question, that had some type of experience in house clearing, never entered the building or shot at the fleeing squatters when they could have. They could also easily have set up an ambush but did not.

[Double Naught Spy]

First, it is not a vigilante action to engage in a defense situation instead of trying to egress from it without engaging. That is simply being proactive. The term vigilante refers to extracting justice on a person without the benefit of due course of the law. If you hunt down a bad guy after an incident and engage him with gunfire, that would be a vigilante action. Protecting yourself or another at the time of the event is called self defense.

Also, while it is true that cops and laws do little to protect folks directly, they are in place and do have many indirect effects. Contrary to a lot of opinions, the police usually do want to help, but our system is reactionary. The police usually don't shadow you all day long as personal protection and so if there is a crisis, they have to respond from where they are and by the time they get to you, the action is likely over. We complain about it, but nobody seems to have come up with a system where police, fire, and ambulance services are anticipatory instead of reactionary without spending the entire Federal Budget in the process.

[RWK]

Troll Alert (IMHO)

[Tamara]

"What would happen if you got in a bar fight..."

"Or would you pull the gun out , empty the chamber and magazine , and roll up your sleeves."

"Worst of all, if you end up fist fighting the BG..."

If I had such a propensity for fisticuffs, I would indeed question the advisability carrying a weapon.

[jtkwon]

The premise of this thread seems to be to troll...

[Erik]

In my experience folks who obtain permit are among the least likely to engage in unnecessary violence of any type.

Key word here is unnecessary.

[joab]

We complain about it, but nobody seems to have come up with a system where police, fire, and ambulance services are anticipatory instead of reactionary without spending the entire Federal Budget in the process. Ever heard the saying "There's never a cop around when you need one". It's not because cops are lazy and shiftless, hiding at the donut shop when there's people to protect.
It's because very few people are stupid enough to commit a violent crime when there is a cop nearby.

[PsychoSword]

I read one article where a couple guys were checking on a house (housesitting) for some friends, when they found that intruders were occupying it. They then proceeded to go in *swat* style, pistols ready. Does this make any sense?!? I would have called 911 and left it at that.

If I recall correctly from the story, one thought they might have left the light on and didn't want to call 911 over it. As soon as they stuck the key in the knob the squatter(s) bolted out the back door.

[Double Naught Spy]

PsychoSword's summary is pretty much correct. They guys felt comfortable trying to do a search of the house because they were armed. It isn't a decision I agree with, but it was well within the law and their responsibilities. The 'SWAT' part of the deal with only the approach and idea that they would do something of a dynamic entry, but that did not involve something like a 'door key' or 'door knocker' devices used to brute force through the lock and hinges. They were using a real key.

So it wasn't vigilante as they were within the law and it wasn't vigilante as they didn't try to extract justice on the intruders after the intruders left.

Was it an unnecessary risk? Maybe. For the guy who wasn't even responsible for the house, I thought it was. Then again, neither party really believed there was anything wrong and so it was going to be more like an exercise than anything else. While critical of the events, I could have quite likely been drawn into a similar situation simply because there really would not be much chance of anything actually being wrong, so the risk is low...but things can be wrong as was the case.

joab, you are too funny! There are some stupid people who do commit crimes in front of cops, but not many. We aren't fortunate enough to have the outlaw element be that consistently stupid.

[nemesis]

What about a carjacking? The thief probably just wants to take the car to a chop-shop and by pulling a gun (they would probably shoot - leaving both of you dead)... just something to think about.

That's possible, but my car wouldn't be on its way to a chop-shop. I see a continuing theme in your replies that seems to suggest a reluctance to take action and defeatist attitude that expects to lose.

I don't expect to lose.

All that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.

Don't worry, the government will take care of you.

[45 Fu]

If I am about to enter a store/business and see it is being robbed I would not enter. However, if I am inside the store/business being robbed then that's a different story. I'm not saying I will do something but the chances are much higher that I will. I already know the BG has no respect for the law and personal property. I don't think it's that much of a leap to assume he/they probably do not care much for human life, as well.

If someone punches my wife in the face you better believe ol' Roscoe is comin' out. I also believe it's a safe assumption that if a person will resort to unprovoked violence that they are more likely to use deadly force than someone who doesn't.

I will go out of my way to avoid trouble. I don't drink, go to bars, do drugs, etc. I keep to myself and mine. This doesn't mean that I'll go through life with zero incidents, but it sure helps. If something does happen it happens and I deal with it.

[firefox]

"It's just you. The vast majority of holders choose flight instead of fight as well as have a tendacy to walk the straight and narrow.

It's kind of a duh"

Looking at some of these followup posts, it may not as be obvious as one would think. I think many would "flight" , but a lot feel much more obligated to do more. I just sometimes question the decision making of some holders since rarely do even well trained leo's do the right thing. There are many repercussions to drawing a firearm in an emergency situation, and your judgement *does* have an impact on the outcome. Whether it be good or bad. You can probably find many cases where our unsung hero indeed helped/saved innocent lives, but I'd bet that it sometimes ends in great tragedy. And no this was not meant to be trolling, I'm a chl holder but pondered these "what if" questions one saturday night. I think they're legitimate. Although many of us gentlemen, do not commit acts of vigilante or take non-life threatening situations in our own hands, fights and confrontations do occur without warning. You could step on somebody's toe, and they start throwing fists at you, or even worse for no good reason. As a legal handgun owner, what is the next justifiable move?

Something to ponder over ....

[firefox]

That's possible, but my car wouldn't be on its way to a chop-shop. I see a continuing theme in your replies that seems to suggest a reluctance to take action and defeatist attitude that expects to lose.



I sure hope this isn't the overall consensus here. I don't think it's a defeatist attitude, but a smart one. Sometimes, it's better to give the car then to *fight*. I'm sure your family and loved one's would agree. Let's not let a macho attitude extend over the logical purpose of a handgun, to save yourself in a life threatening situation. Sure, a car-thief may indeed not respect human life, but I suspect you'll be going cowboy style over small altercations, and holdups that you witness from a far.

I don't expect to lose.

Don't expect to win everytime either. Consider other lives when acting on your bravado mentality.

[LAK]

firefox,

The problem with confrontations is that they are not predictable, and even though you might not be the immediate subject of attention - that can change in a mere second depending on circumstances.

To take the robbery in a building example; while not at the immediate center of attention, you might have some advantages which should attention suddenly focus on you, might no longer apply. This is why I would generally say that during an armed robbery in my presence, I would already consider my life in peril from the start.

Because of the thousands of variables it is impossible to sensibly say, one would do this, or do that as a rule; but there are some constants to consider. One is that a not insignificant number of robbery victims get murdered after they have done what was asked of them - simple compliance alone is not a good idea IMO. Another is that in alot of confrontations where action is required - early in the game is better than later.

[joab]

There are some stupid people who do commit crimes in front of cops, but not many. We aren't fortunate enough to have the outlaw element be that consistently stupid. We did have one of our more brilliant types try to sell drugs to two cops in an unmarked car a few years ago.
Both cops were in uniform and one was the Orange County sheriff

[DAVID NANCARROW]

The thief probably just wants to take the car to a chop-shop and by pulling a gun

Sure, guarrantee me this is the only thing the low life scum bag thief wants, and I might give way and let the insurance company deal with the loss. However, in the attempted car jacking of my Grand National some years back, the BG held up no such sign or offered any sort of contract for me to negotiate.

What he got was a real close look at a 45 Automatic, a voice telling him it wasn't worth it, and a really angry owner ready to ventilate his sad sack rear end if that hand came out of his pocket with anything other than air.

Maybe I'm just not "enlightened" enough to feel their pain, and should turn over everything I have worked for in this life because someone demands it out of a whim.

What is the mindset of those who think we should knuckle under to thugs, carjackers and murderers, and where do I get this chrystal ball which tells me exactly what their intentions are when I am confronted? DU got a sale on these???

[jtkwon]

Better yet, if I see someone who doesn't believe in CCW being robbed at gunpoint, should I just walk away and let whatever happens happen?

I think that people who don't believe in self-defense should be required to wear bright yellow jackets and hats at all times when in public, and those who believe in self-defense should be obligated to aid others who believe in self-defense, but obligated to abandon to criminals anyone wearing the yellow.

And the penalty for wearing yellow AND fighting back when robbed, beaten, or raped should be death.

[eka]

I would like to think that a call to 911 *still* is the right thing to do, unless your immediate life or loved one is in danger.

I just sometimes question the decision making of some holders since rarely do even well trained leo's do the right thing.

Cops and laws do little to protect you, they just try to discourage and respond to crimes.

Police and tactical teams are trained in the psychological element of crimes in progress, but as chl holders we are not.

Firefox, I see by the quotes above there are some contradictions in your statements. Calling 911 is the right thing to do, but when law enforcement shows up they rarely know what to do. However, police officers are trained in crimes in progress issues, but do little to protect you.

It seems you are not comfortable with the decision making of anyone. The police don't know what to do. CCW holders don't know what to do. And you yourself have many questions about what you think you should do.

Then there was...

Heck, after a single person had been pistol whipped, I would have *prepared* to engage, but certainly not draw

So what you are telling me is that you are going to roll up your sleeves and fistfight a man with a pistol in his hand, who is using this pistol as a weapon to inflict blunt force trauma to the head of person.

And then there was...

what happens when someone punches your spouse in the face, breaking her nose? Adrenaline rush becomes a factor and thus (fight or flight). When a firearm is at your fingertips, are you more than likely to pull it? Or would you pull the gun out , empty the chamber and magazine , and roll up your sleeves.

Again the ole sleeves get rolled up only after you take your pistol out and unload it in front of the assailant. I guess this is done only after you frisk him to make sure he doesn't have his trusty Buck knife with him.

The real problem here seems to be that you don't realize it when you are in a potentially life threatening situation. You are looking for an axe murder, who has already killed several people, and is now chasing after you. Anything short of that you are going to comply at all costs and maybe fistfight until the police arrive. Good honest people don't go out looking for trouble, but when trouble finds you, split second decisions have to be made. I agree with you that all situations are different and all situations require a little different response. But you need to realize that people that bring weapons with them when committing a crime are deadly threats. You are trying to rationalize what these people are thinking or going to do. The only problem with doing that, is these criminals are not rational people. They wouldn't be going to such an extreme as committing an armed robbery of an occupied business if they were thinking straight. If someone carjacks you at gunpoint, you have to realize that this is not a car thief so to speak. If you were dealing with merely a car thief. He would have stolen an unoccupied car in a parking lot. If a carjacker has a gun stuck in your face, do you attempt to draw on him? Not if you want to see another day. A fast draw never beats a trigger squeeze. I'll be glad to let him have my car and call my insurance agent. But what if he wants me to tag along with him for a little while. You bet I'll be looking for my opportunity to rid myself of him. There are some damn mean people out there and they don't feel like playing by the rules. The chances of running into a stone cold criminal that wouldn't give two cents for your life is probably not real high in most places. But, you are just as likely to find him as anyone else.

You need to rethink what constitutes a threat to your life. Otherwise, the police are likely to find you dead with your sleeves rolled up and your unloaded gun laying beside you!

[Model520Fan]

The chances of running into a stone cold criminal that wouldn't give two cents for your life is probably not real high in most places.

Probably true, but in the middle of a robbery, the chances rise very high, high enough to bet his life on.
They are definitely not low enough to bet MY life against.

[OBIWAN]

I don't know that I would use the term Vigilante.

But I do see some people "acting differently" because they are armed.

Which can be a good thing...if it makes them extra careful...or more likely to avoid conflict.

But I fear that, for some, they add a potentially fatal step to their decision tree.

I see lots of posts about armed home invaders and very few people include running out the back door as an option.

I see relatively intelligent people talk of holding bad guys at gunpoint.
( Without a good idea of what to do if their unarmed prisoner just walks away)

A wise man once said..." getting in any fight shows a massive failure in your conflict avoidance strategy"

[firefox]

Firefox, I see by the quotes above there are some contradictions in your statements. Calling 911 is the right thing to do, but when law enforcement shows up they rarely know what to do. However, police officers are trained in crimes in progress issues, but do little to protect you.

It seems you are not comfortable with the decision making of anyone. The police don't know what to do. CCW holders don't know what to do. And you yourself have many questions about what you think you should do.

I do think about these things. Don't you? You cannot be so single-minded that in every hostile situation, you'd automatically draw. That's very disturbing at best. I would *prepare* to engage in a robbery if I saw that the criminal was being physically hostile to innocents. And you bet I would think long and hard before actually engaging. Thinking you're doing the heroic thing without regard to other innocent life, is ironically very selfish.

Leo's rarely help because they arrive after the crime in most cases. That's why I firmly believe in personal home defense. I think most would be criminals hesitate because they are afraid of getting caught after the crime. The problem is defining *life-threatening situation*. Sipping coffee at a quickie-mart while some kid robs the clerk is probably borderline.
Going commando style into a residence you are looking after (where you know loved ones are on vacation) is stupid at best. In that situation , you have everything to lose and nothing to gain. Reread that last statement.

And you're right, I don't trust anybody with a gun in a hostile situation. At the very least, leo's are TRAINED. Day in, day out. They train for shot placement, negotiations, psychology , civilian casualty, and a host of several dozen other things you and I as a CCW holder never even touch base on.
A great majority of CCW's are trained in 2 things. SAFETY and how to hit your target. Yet, there are still a few who IMHO have seen one too many episodes of cops.

[firefox]

But I do see some people "acting differently" because they are armed.


That's precisely what I am trying to say. Admittedly , when I first received my CHL a few years ago, I thought about whatif scenario's with me acting with my gun instead of my head. I quickly rid myself of that notion. Almost everyone follows the cardinal rule :

"keep your finger off the trigger until you are ready to shoot" or "treat all guns as loaded" but does everyone follow this one:

"Never do anything you wouldn't normally do without a gun". If I was standing in line at a grocery store and someone was robbing a clerk, I would NEVER attack the BG or try to disarm him. Why do this just because I have a pistol in my coat?

[Hal]

Looking at some of these followup posts, it may not as be obvious as one would think. Nope - sorry - you've been here for a few days. I've been following this board and the posters for 5 years. Between here and www.thehighroad.org which is TFL's sister site, there are several hundred threads dealing with real world encounters which support the flight instead of fight attitude. 1 or 2 days, and a dozen posts aren't indicative of the big picture.

[eka]

Below you will find a link to the Pennsylvania State Police use of force policy. I know most of this applies to LEOs, but it gives a base of knowledge to work off of. I know, I know, that is precisely what Foxfire is talking about, non-LEOs acting like LEOs just because they have a CCW and a gun. But what I am getting at is, what justifies the taking of a human life in defense of your life or the life of another still applies, LEO or not. Now Foxfire, you are on base in respect to avoiding a deadly force encounter if at all possible. In most states there is a statutory requirement to retreat if at all possible to avoid having to defend one's self with force. This of course, may not be possible. LEOs are not required to retreat from any situation. You are not required to retreat in your own home. If you are Joe Citizen walking down the sidewalk and glance inside a store you are passing and see an armed robbery in progress, you should retreat to safety and call the police. You should not rush through the door and shoot it out with the bad guy. If you are inside the store standing at the counter when the bad guy produces a gun, you have a different set of circumstances all together. You will have to decide if you feel you or someone else is in danger of being killed or seriously injured. If you decide you or they are, then deadly force is justified. As long as your reasoning is reasonable. After the determination has been made that deadly force is justified, only you can determine if, when, and how it is to be used. Every situation is different and those exact circumstances will dictate the decisions you make. The real problem is that those decisions are made in seconds. Good decisions could save lives, bad decisions may cause more loss of life. That is exactly why thinking these things through before an encounter occurs is important. LEOs that patrol a beat are encouraged to survey the businesses in their area and dream up different situations and their approach to them. This puts them a step ahead when real things happen. Precisely what we are doing here.

Great thread Foxfire, and very interesting posts.


http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/s_112228.html

[CopeLC]

Who is this guy? Look at the number of posts. Troll sees gun forum. Troll visits gun forum. Troll tries to raise a ruckus in gun forum. Ignore troll and troll goes away. Troll needs to quit listening to John Denver.

[Double Naught Spy]

firefox, you apparently still don't understand the definition of what a vigilante is or is not and what it means to act in defense of one's self or of others. People still do dumb things sometimes, like investigating noises that maybe would best be investigated by professionals, but even so, what they are doing is NOT illegal and if things go south and they find the need to defend themselves, that is their right and is not a vigilante act. Vigilantism comprises illegal acts without due course of the legal system.

You take care of the gun you carry and we will all take care of the guns we carry. Not to worry, we won't be coming to your aid because we know you would not like that. I certainly would not be coming to your aid without a gun and since you don't think we should do things with guns that we would not do without them, I won't be coming to help you. That is the beauty of our legal system. Not only are cops not fully obligated to intervene, but private citizens definitely are not either and so we will leave you alone.

[alvrez2]

JOAB writes:If guns kill people, can I blame my pen for writing bad checks ?

great quote JOAB.

[firefox]

Who is this guy? Look at the number of posts. Troll sees gun forum. Troll visits gun forum. Troll tries to raise a ruckus in gun forum. Ignore troll and troll goes away. Troll needs to quit listening to John Denver.

Never been a John Denver fan. Certainly the number of posts doesn't make any of my points invalid or does pointing this out contribute to the thread in any meaningful way. I'm a texan and gun owner for nearly 10 years and a chl for about 4. Really though, if I was a troll you'd probably see something like this:

"If we eliminated all guns, the world would be a much better place. Guns kill people!"

[firefox]

Not to worry, we won't be coming to your aid because we know you would not like that. I certainly would not be coming to your aid without a gun and since you don't think we should do things with guns that we would not do without them, I won't be coming to help you.

That's exactly my point, your weapon is for SELF-defense. Not mine or anyone else's. Don't try to be a hero, because you'll end up a tragic one. I'd rather you call the police on my behalf if you see kidnappers tieing up my loved ones, so professionals can help negotiate and have adequate backup. I wouldn't want you to get hurt (you will) or jeopardize my family's life (you will). Now, if I was in a bank and it was being robbed, please don't pull out your guns blazing, this will most likely result in a massacre of sorts.

If YOUR life was directly threatened, take careful consideration, and defend/stop the agressor as you see fit. I nor a lot of rational people don't want your bravado actions. We clearly see the immense danger of such an intervention from an amateur at best. We also understand that a threat *already* has a massive advantage. They've prepared to do it, have no morals, may already have their fingers on the trigger, and probably nothing to lose but few brass shells.

[firefox]

Nope - sorry - you've been here for a few days. I've been following this board and the posters for 5 years. Between here and www.thehighroad.org which is TFL's sister site, there are several hundred threads dealing with real world encounters which support the flight instead of fight attitude. 1 or 2 days, and a dozen posts aren't indicative of the big picture.

You're right, a dozen posts aren't indicative and neither is 4509 posts. The number of posts give no indication of experience or the amount read, just the level of participation. I've been reading the forums for many years and have just started posting. There's usually a silent majority out there in cyberspace...

[Archer1440]

*sniff sniff*... smells like troll to me. But presuming for a moment that it isn't...

CHL incident statistics are readily available in most states, and they do NOT support your position at all.

As for a carjacker. Carjacking is a crime of opportunity. Correctly trained CHL holders tend to be more alert than the general populace, limiting their exposure to the opportunity. Awareness of one's surroundings does much to mitigate one's chance of becoming a victim.

Also remember, that skinny pedal under your right foot can be a very effective tool.

[CopeLC]

It's amazing how jargon from my field, electrical, can be applied to debate. If you're running two circuits to a recepticle, don't forget to break off the jumper. Otherwise you'll experience "bucking phases." That's all this firefox is trying to accomplish. His opinion isn't going to change and we'll continue "bucking phases " until we're all bleeding from our fingertips.

[Tamara]

I'm still trying to figure out how sparking an armed carjacker is "vigilantism."

There must be other dictionaries out there than the one I'm using. ;)

[progunner1957]

"In today's society, a fair number of people are of the opinion that an armed robery is somehow 'okay' as long as no one gets hurt; I submit that the only proper outcome of an armed robbery is a dead robber at the scene. "
- Jeff Cooper

"In any confrontation with a criminal, the moment your assailant draws a weapon, you must proceed under the belief that your life and the lives of others involved are at that point in danger." - Masaad Ayoob (paraphrased)

Food for thought.

Do I want to shoot a criminal? H3LL NO! But I want to be shot myself even less!

If I were in a bank and four armed robbers came in and announced a robbery, would I try to shoot it out with them? No - their goal is to get the money and run as quickly as they can. If I were in a convenience store at 3AM and two thugs come in and pull a gun, then what? They want to rob the place - can a person be ABSOLUTELY SURE that they won't decide to kill all potential witnesses? NO.

In that situation, doing nothing could very well get you and others killed; if you wait to see what they are going to do, you may end up with their gun on you, unable to draw yours without being shot or killed. Good judgement is the key.

It seems that with a CCW license, there comes a certain amount of responsibility to defend innocent life, yours as well as others. If you're in a situation where you don't draw your weapon to stop a violent crime and the victim ends up dead, you will have to live with that knowledge for a long time.

Am I advocating going around acting like Wyatt Earp? No. I'm advocating doing the right thing based on good judgement.

[Mannlicher]

I don't see that at all. The reports I have seen show that nationwide, there are almost no instances of folks with a CHL, engaging the enemy other than as the result of a direct attack on them.

[Jeff Gonzales]

All you have to do is justify your own actions.

All you have to do is live with your own action/inaction.

All you have to do is do the right thing.

Life is so simple...isn't it.

Later,

[2400]

All you have to do is justify your own actions.

All you have to do is live with your own action/inaction.

All you have to do is do the right thing.

Life is so simple...isn't it.


exactly........

[Lucky 7]

"There are two types of evil: evil men and the INDiFFERENCE of good men."
-Boondock Saints

Take the above quote as you see fit, however, a vigilante is just a citizen doing his duty to his community.

This coming from a law student. Haha.

-Lucky 7

[carebear]

Crime in progress, involving you in some way? Do your civic duty, not vigilantism.

Catch a suspect after the fact somehow? Call the police, mebbe try to hold 'em? Civic duty again.
Gun 'em down? You are a vigilante and quite possibly a murderer. I hope you enjoy prison, psycho.

[Lucky 7]

Carebear

Maybe you misinterpitted me or I was not as clear as I hoped or both.

If one sees a crime in progress and interveen he is a citizen and not a vigilante as the libel press likes so much to make such situations seem.
That's all I meant by both the quote and my response.

-L7

[tag]

This guy is either a troll, or an idiot. Either way, ignore him.

[carebear]

Gotcha, musta read it wrong, sorry.

The "psycho" wasn't particularly aimed at you. More those who would take the law into their own hands, in general.

[tag]

If CHL holders had the propensity for vigalantism that FF thinks, then the newspapers would be littered with hundreds and thousands of articles about the subject. FF, can you produce any of these articles? Can you provide any real statistics to back your claim, other than your own "observations?"

You need to learn the difference between reality and the rambilings of a few internet blowhard warrior-wannabes.

[Lucky 7]

All hail TAG! All hail TAG!

-L7

[adi]

I just got interested in guns again a few months ago, so its fun to look at different threads online.

One thread will say "someone broke into my house, and I shot him getting through the window"
Replies will be "Hurrah, good job, way to go, way to act accordingly"

Another will say "someone broke into my house, I told him to leave, shot him when he went to the bedroom where my family was"
Replies will be "Hurrah, good job, way to go, way to act accordingly"

And finally the "someone broke into my house, I told him to leave, it was my neighbor, he was drunk and had the wrong house.
Replies will be "Hurrah, good job, way to go, way to act accordingly"

[DarkKnight01]

Hmm after reading all this... the only thing that comes to mind is a favorite saying of mine

"Some people are just stupid... Theres nothing you can do about it."

[D.S. Brown]

Firefox,

It is not vigilanteism to respond appropriately to violence directed at you or other persons outside of your home or in the public domain. It is not vigilanteism to respond to an act of aggression with aggression. A reasonable person does not have to rely upon the good nature of a violent individual who isprepared to commit a crime against him or herself. Your passiveness is unreasonable

I to am a CHL holder in Texas and I teach a basic drawing from concealment class to CHL holders. I think you may have missed the use of force continuum portion of your CHL class. Not every situation that you may find yourself in is one in which a gun needs to be drawn. In the vast majority of of situations one can just walk away or use some type of chemical deterrent. Most people do not fair well in a stand up fight against some violent criminal, think the elderly, most average build women and most men. What I'm trying to say is that you missed the part where your instructor presented many options to dealing with a violent encounter before a gun is drawn. It makes me wonder if you really possess a CHL from Texas. Where did you take the training from to receive the CHL?

In my instruction to CHL holders I let them know that they don't have the right to go to places they would have normally avoided without the gun, now that they carry.

I understand your stance against vigilantes, however I think you have your terms confused and many here have tried to correct you to no avail. Truthfully I think you and many others would be better served if you chose NOT to hold a CHL. Whereas vigilanteism is dangerous your passive stance about violent encounters is on the opposite end of that spectrum and is equally dangerous. I would want someone that was a lawful CHL holder to intervene on behalf of my loved ones if a violent crime was occurring in their presence or worse having it directed at them. BTW having worked for a sheriffs department I am not quite so enamored with the training or proficiency in firearms of many law enforcement officers.

Again this isn't meant as a slam but I would seriously re-evaluate your position of holding a CHL. There is clearly a difference between what you term vigilantes and your position, which amounts to armed-nonviolent-passive resistance. Keep guns in the house if you must but I would rethink that as well. I think the best advice I could give you if you plan to continue to carry a firearm for personal protection, (which persons we don't know), is to take a class on combat mindset. The latter is something lacking in most CHL instruction and should be sought out privately. I believe Sigarms Academy offers a class called the Bulletproof Mindset for civilian CHL holders and leo's/military. At the very least you can decide if you want to carry or not and have it be an informed decision. Until then I wouldn't carry. I think your stated passivity makes you too dangerous to yourself and others. Again not a slam. We all do our civic duty in various ways. Trust me you are not the first, and not the last CHL holder I've recommended this to. It's kind of like this, many students know that I was in the Army and ask if they should join. I tell them that there are people suited for military service and those that are not. Sometimes those who are unsuited adapt and even excell, however the vast majority of people unsuited for military service do their country a greater service by NOT joining.

Good Luck!

Best,
Dave

[RWK]

”That's exactly my point, your weapon is for SELF-defense. Not mine or anyone else's.”

Firefox,

That is about as amoral and cowardly a statement as I have ever read. Every jurisdiction permits the use of force (firearms or any other type) to defend innocents – not only yourself – from immediate and grave danger. So, too, do all major religions and philosophies.

You have asked us to “think about” many things in your posts to this thread. Well, you need to ponder this: You see a 65-year-old woman being mugged and assaulted. You judge that you are not in any peril, but the victim will – at the very best – be badly injured. By your words quoted above, you do not interfere to save this woman. That is abhorrent, it violates all normative standards common in Western civilization, and it suggests a lack of values and ethics that make any other opinions you state non-credible.

I have been a participant on TFL, THR and S’ville for many years. Further, I have been part of the firearms community for almost 60 years (my father was an FBI Special Agent, so I grew up with firearms). My experiences suggest that lawful firearms users are among our society’s most prudent and judicious citizens, not at all the “cowboys” your posts suggest (no offense intended to cowboys, by the way).

It seems to me that you would do well to spend some time listening, analyzing and learning, rather than pontificating.