The original poster said something that I understood one way, but it seems everyone else understood it a different way. He wrote, in part:
Quote:
|
"I was having a discussion about why I carry a handgun. I was asked "oh, so if some crazy person starts shooting in a mall, you can take him out?" My answer was no. My gun is there to protect me and my family, not the general public."
|
Now, I've failed to quote the balance of his post but it is still there at the head of this thread. The first sentence contains the important.point.
My understanding of the gambit, ""oh, so if some crazy person starts shooting in a mall, you can take him out?" was that the person asking the OP this was in reality belittling him, suggesting that carried a handgun in order to be a "hero" or Batman or some self-aggrandizing "wanna-be" savior with an inflated sense of his own ability and worth. It seems like an attack, not an honest question.
His answer that no, he carried the gun to protect himself and his family, not the general public, did not seem to me to entail the proposition that he would not intervene to save the general public if the chance presented itself - only that he did not carry specifically for that purpose. The OP can clarify this if he sees fit to do so.
Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm reading too literally, maybe I'm reacting to those who, in the past, have accused me of "wanting to save the world" - while they choose not to carry, but rather to depend on "the authorities" and on the odds against "it" happening when and where they happen to be.
"Responsibility" is circumstantial. My responsibility is to provide for my wife. If she is present, I'll do my best to keep her safe - whether that means shooting an attacker (given the opportunity, and a lot of luck) or inducing her to move to a safer place (like out the back door). She is a stubborn woman but will move to safety if the situation clearly warrants it.
If she is safe at home, my situation is quite different. I'm within 2 years of retirement and have life insurance through my employer. I pay a little extra (Supplemental Life) and she will get 5 years of my salary if I die before I retire. I'm literally worth more dead than alive.
If she is safe I see my responsibility as a Citizen to use whatever tools and skill I have to end a gratuitous attack on innocent people. Even people who are legally capable of having a CHL (i.e. adults, not prohibited persons) but have chosen not to.
Best case, I subdue the attacker and pay legal bills, am exonerated. Next best, I end the attack but loose my life. Worse if I fail to subdue the attacker and loose my life. Worst case, I'm crippled and a burden.
If she is safe at home and I bug out instead of engaging the attacker, allowing him to keep shooting until the cops arrive - I'd better not go home, she will be so disgusted with me that getting shot would be a better deal.
So to the OP - No you are not wrong! You seem to have a good handle on why you have chosen to carry a handgun. May you never have to use it for real.