September 20, 2019, 10:28 PM | #1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 17, 2000
Posts: 409
|
Two Examples
In the actions of two men during recent mass shooting events we saw two diametrically opposite courses of action based on what seem like 2 competing schools of thought. At Parkland, Deputy Scott Peterson assumed a defensive posture in a tactically secure area where his back and flanks weren’t exposed and waited for SWAT to show up. He is widely reviled for this course of action, the same taken by police at Columbine and Pulse nightclub in Orlando, and the same non-interventionist strategy that seems to be prevalent among many CCW holders. In retrospect his actions seem to me to be tactically sound but morally problematic as he let innocents die while possessing the means to hinder or impede their deaths. Then there is the very different choice made by civilian Stephen Willeford, who confronted and ultimately stopped the active shooter at his neighborhood church. In doing so he broke a lot of the rules of self preservation, running alone toward the sound of gunfire with no backup, wielding a scary looking magazine fed weapon with an empty magazine well. Had he listened to a lot of discussion board fodder, he would have known that responding police could have mistaken him for the perp and shot him, and that he unlike a sworn LEA wasn’t responsible for fighting crime. His actions seem to me in retrospect to be tactically unsound compared to Peterson’s, but morally very different. Much has been made of the fact that Peterson had a duty to intervene because of his job, but that seems like a copout to me- his duty was an administrative one to be sure, but even that was tenuous as his Department had recently changed their policy from “shall confront” to “may confront”. Each to me followed and ultimately embodied the two prevalent schools of thought among CCW holders re mass shootings. So questions of “personal choice” aside, does an armed CCW holder have a moral or ethical duty to the defenseless people around him or her to follow the example of Peterson or Willeford in a similar situation?
Last edited by simonov jr; September 20, 2019 at 10:43 PM. |
September 20, 2019, 10:52 PM | #2 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,434
|
Quote:
Stephen Willeford was across the street when he saw the shooter come out of the church, and he (Willeford) was able to engage the shooter at comparatively long range. Willeford didn't have to enter a large building and start clearing it room by room, not knowing where the shooter was. I'm not sure what you mean about Willeford "wielding a scary looking magazine fed weapon with an empty magazine well." He had an AR-15. You don't feed an AR-15 by hand like you can a bolt rifle. He had a magazine, and when he engaged the shooter (and scored hits), he most certainly did have a magazine in the magazine well. Would Mr. Willeford have entered the church if the shooter hadn't come out? We'll never know, because events didn't play out that way. Please understand that I am not trying to take anything away from Mr. Willeford. There is no question in my mind that the shooter intended to next go hunting for his ex-wife and her mother, and Willeford ended the carnage right there. He didn't drop the shooter on the spot, which allows some people to claim that he didn't "end" the incident -- but the reality is that once Willeford put lead in the shooter, the shooter switched from being the hunter to being the prey. Stephen Willeford was a hero, IMHO. But I still don't consider the two events to be comparable. Your question is in conflict with itself. Does an armed CCW holder (which was not Willeford -- he had a rifle, not a CCW pistol) have a moral or ethical duty to intervene in a mass shooting incident? But you want to "put aside" questions of personal choice? That's simply not possible. Clearly, there is no legal duty for armed "civilians" to intervene in such incidents, an any state in the U.S. Since there is no legal duty, any decision to intervene or not to intervene must be a personal choice, so you can't neatly put personal choice aside. As to the ethics or morality, there are far too many variables. Is the hypothetical armed CCW holder married? Does he have children? It's one thing for a single person with no dependents to put his life at risk. Is it moral or ethical for a married man with a wife and children to put his life at risk, thereby risking leaving his family without their breadwinner, the wife without her life partner, and the children without their father? I'm sorry, but I think your question is overly simplistic and has no answer.
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO 1911 Certified Armorer Jeepaholic |
|
September 21, 2019, 12:56 AM | #3 |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
Aguila Blanca is being overly kind in describing your question as overly simplistic with no answer in my view. You’ve chosen two incidents from a broad range of mass shootings and used them to frame your question. Do you know who Mark Wilson is?
And how the heck do you put questions of “personal choice” aside when deciding whether you are going to risk your life to try and save others? You understand this isn’t a comic book right? Honestly, I read your question and checked your join date because I thought you might be a child and I didn’t want to be harsh to a child. If I had framed this discussion by picking the west coast civilian who was paralyzed after confronting a mass shooter and then comparing it to the Santa Fe school resource officers who charged into that fight in a way that would make Teddy Roosevelt blush, would we have a clearer view of the moral/ethical aspects? You’ve framed the discussion in a very click-baity, non-productive manner in my view. Whether an action is successful has jack blank to do with whether it is moral/ethical. Anyone who carries a gun had best understand that the most moral/ethical thing we can all agree on can still get them killed or paralyzed for life, and generally impoverish their families and the people they love in very unkind ways. Last edited by Bartholomew Roberts; September 21, 2019 at 01:08 AM. |
September 21, 2019, 08:41 AM | #4 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: October 21, 2009
Location: Quadling Country
Posts: 2,780
|
The second part of your quesion makes little sense as well.
Quote:
Even if we trim it further: Quote:
So I have no idea where you are going with this.
__________________
Thus a man should endeavor to reach this high place of courage with all his heart, and, so trying, never be backward in war. |
||
September 21, 2019, 10:44 AM | #5 |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,434
|
I forgot to mention that Deputy Scott Peterson was a sworn law enforcement officer, Stephen Willeford was not. Yes, you can argue that Peterson's department had recently changed their policy to "may confront," but the underlying fact is that he was being paid to be on that campus as the only sworn police officer on site, which means that he was being paid to keep those children safe. He took his pay checks to the bank every week for a good many years, yet when the moment arrived for him to earn his paycheck, he didn't do anything. Never mind about Sutherland Springs and Stephen Willeford. What are the ethics and morality of accepting a paycheck to provide security, and then failing to act when the time comes that the people in your care need you to protect them?
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO 1911 Certified Armorer Jeepaholic |
September 21, 2019, 11:02 AM | #6 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 4, 1999
Location: Rebel South USA
Posts: 2,074
|
One has nothing to do with the other.. you cant realistically compare a law enforcement action to a citizen self defense endeavor. Just because there are some overlapping elements does not make it the same.
There are many consideration to consider... protection of self / protection of others/ law enforcement(stopping the crime)/ winning the fight/ surviving the fight/ avoiding the fight/ escaping the fight/ sacrifice of self/ sacrifice of others/ duty/ mission/ responsibility/ policy/ moral conflict/ societal sensibilities/ and certainly there are varying tactics and strategies to satisfiy each. One simply has to decide and come to terms with that they are doing. Speaking just for myself, I am no public sentential and I am not trying to play police or be a hero. I will do what I must to defend my life, my family and friends. If a badguy stands in the way of that, I will take him on.. if I can go the other way, I likely will. If I were a LEO, I would seek out the badguy and engage him.. it simply a different mindset which is fostered by duty and responsibility. Its not that I think LEO are supposed to be public sentinels but I do believe that they have a duty to immediately stop the ongoing criminal acts which are threatening life. Doing so is a dangerous business
__________________
Life is a web woven by necessity and chance... |
September 21, 2019, 11:30 AM | #7 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 23, 2010
Location: US South
Posts: 857
|
simonov jr,
You are either trolling or truly don't understand the difference between CCW holders and a duly sworn officers of the law. Either way, Why pose this, if you expect respect for any further comments from you? Why - just don't make sense to me.
__________________
Ray |
September 21, 2019, 01:34 PM | #8 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 13, 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 12,453
|
Any CCW holder would most likely be shot by police in any of those situations. The Police have no idea who the criminal is in most cases. Plus they're just as scared as anybody else. Most PD firearms training and individual skill level is minimal too.
The CCW guy may be a better shot than the average cop, but he has no training at all. Having a CCW is not an urban combat licence. It's about self-defence.
__________________
Spelling and grammar count! |
September 22, 2019, 08:50 AM | #9 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 2, 2017
Posts: 1,868
|
I carry about every where. In the situation of the second guy, non LEO, Unless there was some relative or very close friend in there, he was a fool. Everybody has the same opportunity to get a carry license same as I do. Because I do have one does not place some moral obligation on me to protect those that don't want the license. If everyone carried I think these shooting would go down! As for the LEO, sound kinda of like he was on duty. Being alone I'd say he did the right thing. He get's shot trying to be a hero and no one left to protect anyone. Secure the area and wait for reinforcements! Kind of the live to fight another day way of thinking. In my view, he did his job.
|
September 22, 2019, 09:10 AM | #10 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 22, 2011
Posts: 12,181
|
Quote:
Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk |
|
September 22, 2019, 02:03 PM | #11 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 17, 2000
Posts: 409
|
I find this discussion fascinating despite apparently hitting a nerve or two. There are some good points about the two situations I cited, particularly re: the fact that the Texas shooter was confronted when he came out so Willeford didn't enter the premises. However the question was a moral one, ie one of principal, so like other questions of principal the particulars of the situation can vary but the principal remains. Honestly some of the responses seem a bit defensive to me, though I could be reading more into it than there is. I say let us reason together., I'm not infallible but I also frankly don't care if someone is uncomfortable or triggered merely because I raised an honest moral question.
This thread is making me think about some things that should probably have been obvious to me before, but which I hadn't really integrated. Wayne LaPierre famously said "To stop a bad guy with a gun, you need a good guy with a gun". I have said that myself on occasion to anti-gunners, and I dare say Stephen Willeford has been a classic case of a GGWG to most in the 2A community. And what MADE him GOOD is that he acted for the good of others and at the risk of his own life- nobody describes his neighbors as Good Guys Without Guns. Deputy Peterson on the other hand was neither a bad guy with a gun OR a good guy with a gun, since he neither acted against the students nor the gunman but rather acted only with his own self-preservation in mind. He was what I am calling a NEUTRAL guy with a gun (NGWG) in that his presence was literally a non-factor in the outcome, if you discount the unfortunate fact that he also warned several of his fellow responding officers not to intervene as well (advice they apparently took). My friend recently took a CCW course, and was advised by the instructor that he is "not a LEA" and the proper response to an active shooter is "not" to engage the shooter but rather to basically do the same thing he would do if he were not armed. He was advised he should only fire at the mass shooter "IF AND ONLY IF" the BG was "engaging him and his family first", because of course as we all know the shooter always misses the first few shots and you can always tell when the bullets are coming at you, so you'll definitely have enough time to figure that out and bring your undrawn gun to bear. I myself am not a big believer in conventional wisdom, or dogma, and this is no exception. What is apparent to me now is that while a sizeable sub-set of the CCW holding community like Willeford can accurately be described as "a good guy with a gun", in that they are willing to act at least in part for the good of others, there is a big proportion who empirically speaking do not feel any overriding moral duty to assist others in that situation. As far as I can tell nobody here has said that directly, but it seems to me to be the plain meaning of some of these and other responses from CCW holders. No judgments from me, you do you. But if you have a plan of action that is not materially different than Deputy Peterson's, eg take cover, flee, shoot only what is a direct threat to yourself, I think definitionally you are more of a Neutral Guy With A Gun than a GGWAG. Granted you'll take action as a last resort if the gunman happens to corner you in a hallway bathroom, but while the outcome of that would be good it falls more within the realm of luck than intent. Otherwise it seems like your firearm might as well be at home, as your plan is functionally identical to what it would have been had you come unarmed, and like Deputy Peterson you are neither a threat nor a deterrent to potential BG's. I'm not saying that this 3rd category is immoral or bad, but it certainly seems A-moral to me. I was initially tempted to say that this is a form of Swiss Neutrality on a personal level, except that Switzerland would have been assured of annihilation if it had attempted to stop the Nazi's for example. To my way of thinking it is more like that of the pre-Spiderman Peter Parker, who allowed a mugger to run past him without interfering because it wasn't his problem only to find that the criminal was capable of his family because of his inaction. Personally I prefer to follow the example of Willeford, and my intention has been to act accordingly in the impossibly unlikely event such a situation should occasion arise, within the bounds of common sense of course. For example that doesn't mean intervening when a pimp slaps a prostitute on the street, or stopping bar fights. Nor do I have the right to involve other innocents like my wife and child, so were they with me getting them to safety would take precedence. However once I had brought them to safety I would seriously consider returning to the hot zone depending on the totality of circumstances. If there is a perp in an entrenched position, rest assured I will not be assaulting that position solo with my compact 9mm. I am however intrigued by those who say in a blanket way that they will flee a situation where other innocents are being slaughtered around or near them as long as the BG leaves them alone and they aren't themselves in apparent danger. Leaving aside some of the tactical problems with that, eg "If you can see the enemy, he can see (and engage) you", what would that look like in real life? For example, if I'm at the restaurant with 10 of my similarly armed and neutral friends and a BG comes in the back door shooting patrons, do the 10 of us file out the front door and stand around on our 10 cell phones calling 911? Do we file past him while he does his work in the anterior dining room as long as he doesn't look or fire our way? How about if he stops to reload or his gun jams, how would that change the calculation or should we still pass him by since he could still finish reloading or clearing it and turn the gun on me and any action I take might direct his attention away from the other people he is pumping bullets into? What if someone slower, like a handicapped person, is impeding our route- do we push them out of the way to expedite our escape since seconds count in these situations and our primary obligation is to survive to support our families? How about if my friend is hit but come to think of it he's more like an acquaintance- do I leave him, or is there some rule about how long I must have known him in order for him to come under the umbrella of my protection? What about a 3rd cousin, or a step-brother? Come to think of it what if the 10 of us are sitting there and the BG "only" has a knife- the Tueller drill tells us that he can close and stab us in 1.5 seconds if we are within normal handgun range, so does that really change our calculation when the criteria is the ability to return safely to our families and having been sworn in as a LEA? Later standing outside as one of the few survivors, how do we suppose our family members will react when we tell them we ran past all the shooting victims, letting them take some of the bullets that were meant for us, in order to "be there for them"? For that matter what about witnessing a forcible rape or attempted child abduction- it seems like that perp could also have a gun even if I don't see it, so by the same logic shouldn't I clear the area as fast as possible to get out of the range of the weapon he might have? Come to think of it, if I see someone drowning or trapped in a smoking car, I'm neither a lifeguard or an EMT...? On a larger note, what if the government decides to start confiscating our guns- do I really want to jeopardize my livelyhood with an illegal gun charge (or an "accessory to" charge if I don't turn in someone who's illegal guns I know about), or is it better just to turn them in and keep being a good provider? Edmund Burke supposedly said "All that is necessary for evil to succeed, is for good men to do nothing". It seems to me like once I make the calculation to take a position of a-moral armed neutrality, adhering to that logic is a fairly slippery slope. Personally I am no hero, but I do have a lot of training and experience that would potentially allow me to be a good guy with a gun so right now that is my operating plan. I do of course want to be there for my wife and son, but I also do not want him to grow up in a world where good men do nothing, where CCW holders are no deterrence to evil doers and where the example his father gave him is one of self-service in the face of peril. Again no offense intended to the NGWG here, but I do think the distinction between NGWG and GGWG is real and worth noting. One more thing I will say- if I or one of my loved ones is ever in a venue when a mass shooting breaks out and there is another CCW holder present, I sure hope it's one like Stephen Willeford and not one of the NGWG variety. |
September 22, 2019, 02:57 PM | #12 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 22, 2011
Posts: 12,181
|
That's a lot of text to essentially say you have an opinion and will judge others based on it. Okay, you do you. To me the fact that your first example went to a superhero comic is a bit telling and I wonder if you have a hero complex. But that aside you proceed to go a bit extreme with some of your hypotheticals and throw speculation to the wind. I could take those scenarios you wrote and do the same in the direction of the less positive outcomes, but does that accomplish anything?
I didn't comment before because while I disagreed with you I did think you had a right to that opinion. I still think that way. I'm passed the point in my life of caring is someone lablels be GGWG or NGWG. Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk Last edited by TunnelRat; September 22, 2019 at 03:17 PM. |
September 22, 2019, 02:58 PM | #13 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,434
|
Quote:
Second: In your opening post, you wrote, "So questions of 'personal choice' aside, ..." But now you mention that you have had training and experience that many CCW holders have not had. You then wrote, "Personally I am no hero, but I do have a lot of training and experience that would potentially allow me to be a good guy with a gun so right now that is my operating plan." To me, that looks and sounds a lot like a personal choice. You have evaluated your particular situation and your understanding of whatever moral criteria were taught to you by your parents and/or whomever, so you have made a "personal choice" as to what your plan will be. Why do you want to criticize and castigate people who perform a similar analysis of their own life situation and moral compass, and arrive at what may be an operating plan that's different from yours? Apparently, you believe that any decision that's different from yours is morally invalid. I can't accept that. Lastly, I object to your simplistic attempt to separate people with guns into GGWG and NGWG. You are attempting to take a very broad and nuanced spectrum and pigeon-hole everyone into one of two black-and-white categories. You are conflating situations where a _GWG is in a place where a mass shooting erupts with a _GWG who is outside. There's a difference (a BIG difference, in my estimation) between being inside and running past other victims to save yourself, as compared to being on the outside as a private citizen, not as a sworn LEO, and running into a building where there's a mass shooting taking place. You don't seem to recognize that difference. Further, anyone who doesn't decide that his plan is the same as your plan is automatically relegated to the NGWG category. That's your perception of the situation and you have every right to hold that opinion, but please don't belittle me if I don't share your perception.
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO 1911 Certified Armorer Jeepaholic |
|
September 22, 2019, 03:02 PM | #14 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 4, 1999
Location: Rebel South USA
Posts: 2,074
|
Brother.. If you are willing to suffer the consequences of mistakes, errors,happenstance, issue beyond your control and other civil liabilities which may befall a person once they start firing projectiles in the direction of a badguy, its fine with me. If you do everything right and still find yourself in the middle of a significant civil entanglement where someone was unintentionally damaged by your heroics, its fine by me. If you do everything right but find yourself being unrealistically scrutinized by an overzealous DA or politically charged uproar relating to your heroic acts, its fine by me. If you are fine with potentially being subject to friendly fire from LEOs who may mistakenly identify you as a hostile, its fine by me. If you are willing to risk your livelihood, career, health, life savings and your families monetary well being in the hopes that everything works out in your favor.. its certainly admirable. All that said, Im not ok with it personally and I will limit my involvement in combat to those conditions which I or my family cannot avoid.
I feel that the school resource officer should have done more and if it were me, I would certainly have done more in spite of the obvious risk. Its a totally different universe and should not be compared to citizen self defense. I don't make life choices based on saying, idioms, mantras, things that Spiderman does in movies, nifty sounding quips relating to good/evil or emotional societal sensibilities. The whole good guy with a gun and good men doing nothing is all a bunch of emotional marketing. I am just a guy who happens to be armed, I am not trying to right the wrongs of the world. I think all people are good and bad so I wouldn't put too much stock in hero worship. People are good until they are not and being good or bad is not a prerequisite to performing a good deed. A badguy with a gun can stop another badguy with a gun and a good guy with a gun is not immune from doing bad things. I accept the entertainment value of all these "sayings" but I think its a mistake to treat them as life models. As far as people being triggered by your post, I don't think its that at all. I simply think that some (including myself) were befuddled by it.
__________________
Life is a web woven by necessity and chance... |
September 22, 2019, 03:13 PM | #15 | |||||||||
Senior Member
Join Date: October 21, 2009
Location: Quadling Country
Posts: 2,780
|
I don't think anyone is triggered, unless poor grammar, punctuation, sentence structure and long meandering paragraphs that wander around several topics without saying much are triggering.
I am trying to glean sense out of your post thinking maybe there is a question in there worthy of discussion and I have come up with this: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Trying to conflate ethics and morals in to tactics and training is simply never going to work. With tactics and training there are going to be different kind of ways of doing things to achieve the best outcome based upon what your goals are. Morals and ethics are your goals. One pulls the other. Essentially you are trying to put the cart before the horse.
__________________
Thus a man should endeavor to reach this high place of courage with all his heart, and, so trying, never be backward in war. Last edited by MTT TL; September 22, 2019 at 08:09 PM. |
|||||||||
September 22, 2019, 04:31 PM | #16 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 23, 2010
Location: US South
Posts: 857
|
Quote:
Its not either - It's both
__________________
Ray |
|
September 22, 2019, 06:09 PM | #17 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 24, 2008
Location: central Arkansas
Posts: 400
|
> his duty was an administrative one to be sure, but even that was tenuous as his Department had recently changed their policy from “shall confront” to “may confront”.
--- He wore the badge. He took the salary. I don't care what his department policy said. That's not what I expect from a police officer. If he wasn't required to do anything, why was he even *there*? They could have just leaned one of those cardboard "Officer Friendly" cutouts against the wall and got just as much protection out of it. |
September 22, 2019, 07:00 PM | #18 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 4, 1999
Location: Rebel South USA
Posts: 2,074
|
I agree that he should have done more but lets not be naïve. If his job was much like other SROs, his job would have been to investigate crime and enforce the law as any LEO, work to mitigate delinquency and truancy, work to help assist in conflict or defiance resolution efforts, help foster a good working relationship with the staff and stand as a role model to students, to interact with students and foster positive relationship between students and law enforcement, to provide basic security during normal operations, activities and gatherings.
All that said, there certainly is an argument to be made that he did initiate a LEO response and took a plausible position to potentially apprehend the criminal. No matter how reprehensible it may seem, he reportedly was allowed by policy to make such a decision. Law enforcement/ security or protection responsibilities can often clash with one another regarding methods, tactics and strategies. I make no excuses for this man and as I said many times, I think he should have and could have done more. I just do not believe its intellectually honest to suggest that he took a salary and didn't do anything. He did do the absolute minimum of what was allowed via policy from a purely law enforcement point of view. He was hardly a cardboard cutout if reports of his school related accolades are accurate. Do I agree or support what he decided to do? No.. but any criticism of him should probably be framed within the proper context.
__________________
Life is a web woven by necessity and chance... Last edited by FireForged; September 22, 2019 at 07:06 PM. |
September 22, 2019, 08:53 PM | #19 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 30, 2016
Posts: 211
|
Quote:
Had he, Deputy Peterson, gone after the shooter, even if he couldn't find him or stop him and in defiance of the letter of policy, his department would have backed him 100%. He didn't, he was a coward, then he tried to hide behind policy to cover his cowardice. |
|
September 22, 2019, 10:23 PM | #20 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,434
|
Quote:
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO 1911 Certified Armorer Jeepaholic |
|
September 23, 2019, 06:13 AM | #21 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 4, 1999
Location: Rebel South USA
Posts: 2,074
|
if any of that is true.. it can easily stand as the basis for legitimate criticism. It still does not negate the point I was making.
__________________
Life is a web woven by necessity and chance... |
September 23, 2019, 10:00 AM | #22 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 2, 2017
Posts: 1,868
|
So, how many people on either side of this discussion have ever found yourself in a similar situation? I never have been. Haven't been trained for it either.
I have an obligation to protect my family and myself, no one else. I would help a really close friend. There's a lot of other's in the area and every one of them has the same opportunity to carry just as I do. Yet they choose not to! That does not make me instantly responsible morally or any other way to protect them. You engage and the cops show up, are you a good guy or a bad guy? Maybe your wearing a white hat to identify yourself? If your an on duty officer, charging in just might get even more people killed, My take is wait for the swat team, they are likely better trained than you are. Of course if it happens right in front of you and you run off, I got a problem with it. Listening to a number of CC people talk, it worry's me. Seem's they live to be that GGAG regardless their training and background. I had security training in the service, I was the Security NCO at one unit. But we trained for aggression of a different type. Could I charge in and risk extra lives, sure! Then some of you would call me the bad guy if people got killed that shouldn't have! No win situation. The gun I carry is not intended for assualt! 8 rds in the mag is it. It hide's away very nicely and will deliver a bullet in the right situation. I have another that I seldom carry I'd call an assualt weapon. It carry's 15 rds with a back up mag of yet another 15 rds. I carry for personnal protection of myself, family and close friends. Not to cover the ass of all those anti's that don't want to carry! |
September 23, 2019, 01:26 PM | #23 | ||||||
Senior Member
Join Date: October 21, 2009
Location: Quadling Country
Posts: 2,780
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Thus a man should endeavor to reach this high place of courage with all his heart, and, so trying, never be backward in war. |
||||||
September 23, 2019, 06:26 PM | #24 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 16, 2002
Location: alaska
Posts: 3,498
|
Quote:
__________________
"Every man alone is sincere; at the entrance of a second person hypocrisy begins." - Ralph Waldo Emerson "People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use." - Soren Kierkegaard |
|
September 23, 2019, 08:31 PM | #25 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 4, 1999
Location: Rebel South USA
Posts: 2,074
|
exactly!
__________________
Life is a web woven by necessity and chance... |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|