Am I wrong??

[MLeake]

Could you live with yourself if you shot the wrong person, grizz?

[MLeake]

Wreck-n-Crew, I understand your point. Perhaps I am being generous, but I assumed the OP probably lacked in skills or confidence rather than in ethics.

[deepcreek]

Interesting subject I have been around smaller communities were “security is everyones job” then you get in cities were “let the police do their job” and you can go to prison for not running away and calling 911.

To me it is all a personal call if I saw someone robbing a single woman I would try to help. If I saw someone robbing Wells Fargo it is not my business.

[craZivn]

To the OP, I think your answer was probably close to what I would've given under the circumstances. If you had said "Yeah, I'd take him out" you would most likely have immediately branded yourself as a "big-talking vigilante who thinks he's Dirty Harry" or something along those lines.
Regardless if what course you would actually take in a real situation, I think you gave the right answer to what was kind of a dumb question, even though it was considerably more humble and boring than the wrong answer. Props!

And I agree that Mleake's points are all very good.

Ivan

[Tactical Jackalope]

I think your answer was probably close to what I would've given under the circumstances. If you had said "Yeah, I'd take him out" you would most likely have immediately branded yourself as a "big-talking vigilante who thinks he's Dirty Harry" or something along those lines.

Still doesn't make sense how one is a bad thing to say (what I quoted) and the other is a noble thing to say and gets a pat on the back.


Boils down to not knowing unless your there. Yet still one answer of fleeing gets praise but an answer of wanting to help the best way I could gets flagged as inappropriate followed by insulting comments.


The morals people. Where are they? ...we're just talking here, but it all starts somewhere doesn't it? We cower with just "talk" imagine when it actually happens... We need sheepdogs more than sheep with guns.

[tahunua001]

I was actually agreeing with OP to a point. yes it is not cut and dry, black and white, good and evil type of situation. I was agreeing with you that you don't get a concealed carry permit to protect people you don't know, that's exactly the reason that this country has a police department in every state, county and city(where funds allow). it is not located anywhere in your CCW application where you check the box that says "to serve and protect". I also think you did an alright job handling your position where someone else is judging you for not wanting to help strangers.

HOWEVER...

I was just pointing out that should you be in a situation where you are seeing a madman shooting up the local gas and go would you just hop back in your car and call the cops? one situation that always comes to mind these days is the oregon mall shooting last december(3 days before sandy hook that miraculously missed headlines) where a CCW holder drew his gun and never fired a shot but he stopped a shooting that could have been just as tragic as SH.

[Tactical Jackalope]

I was agreeing with you that you don't get a concealed carry permit to protect people you don't know, that's exactly the reason that this country has a police department in every state, county and city(where funds allow)

Yes, they do a fantastic job of picking up the body parts after the fact. Do you know how many times police were called when a mass shooting occurs and how many of them stockpile outside the vicinity waiting for SWAT to gear up while people are in there getting killed?

How do you all seriously not see this?

[Evan Thomas]

Originally Posted by nhbmaing

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.

Nhbmaing, welcome to TFL!

This is a subject that always seems to bring out chest-thumpers and moralizers, but in the end, it comes down to recognizing both one's limitations and one's priorities.

Originally Posted by tahunua001

protecting myself and my family takes precedence but if I were to find myself in a situation where I could stop the blood shed myself then I would not hesitate to do so. even if I got my family outside and the shooting was still going on inside I would probably have a hard time sitting outside and waiting for the cops....

Originally Posted by grizz223

In my opinion it is better to die trying to save others than to run away and live to fight another day. I could not live with myself if innocent people were killed because I did nothing.

One thing that's often overlooked by the people who make this sort of statement is that if you have a family, your first responsibility is to them. It sounds good to want to rush to the sound of the guns, but by putting yourself at risk in this way, you'd also put your family at risk. If you're killed while trying to save strangers, it's your family who will suffer: your kids will grow up without a dad, your wife will lose your love, companionship, and support, and they will all likely suffer financial hardship.

Go re-read this post by MLeake. There are many things that can go wrong in this scenario -- you might have a harder time living with yourself if you killed an innocent person.

Just because you want to help doesn't mean you're qualified to. How much force-on-force training have you had? Have you attended courses on active shooter response? If you haven't trained for this kind of encounter, and practiced to keep your skills up, the chance that you'll be able to do something useful isn't all that great, and the chance you'll be shot is bigger than you think. Hero fantasies, moralizing, and chest-thumping will not compensate for lack of training. (And one thing training may teach you is that intervening isn't necessarily a good idea... )

The OP recognizes his limitations, and that's a good thing. It sounds like his decision is a practical, sensible one. As he gains experience and training, his outlook may change, or it may not -- either is fine.

[bonefamily]

OP - I don't think you are acting wrong. I think different folks will have different reactions depending on who they are and who they have to depend on them. My wife and I (average Joe citizens) got out CCW permits to protect ourselves and our family. If I put my life in danger to purposely protect others, I surely could leave the ones that depend on me behind in the worst case scenario my life was ended. It surely may sound selfish, but my family comes first and foremost and I intend to protect them and care for them first. Just my opinions relative to my life.

[P5 Guy]

Well if you are wrong then so am I.
I'm not going to engage anyone if I do not have to. I would have to if my safety was on the line and then only.

[grizz223]

MLeake
You ask me if I could live with myself if I shot the wrong person. The honest answer is I don't know if I could or not but it is my nature to protect that is why I am a deputy sheriff. I can tell you the is a very high probabilty that I would be fired if I shot the wrong person.

[Wreck-n-Crew]

Not everyone will jump on the tracks to save a stranger but most would reach a hand down and pull them up if they could. Fully knowing they could be hurt or even killed, they instinctively know they they risk less life by their attempt than jumping onto the tracks.

Being armed is not the ultimate safety against any threat like the scenario but it's much better than not. And being closer to equal to the assailant, i could not let the innocent just die if i have a choice.

The difference between the mall scenario and the school scenario is more children and maybe open space and that's it as far as i can see. I know what i would do and i have seen people sacrifice against higher odds than this one. For that reason i am internally compelled to help my fellow man if i can.

I don't want a badge honor or glory I am simply compelled.

I give my respect to those who do sacrifice and risk their lives and i have no wish to stand in their shoes.

They need precious minutes to get there, sometimes it just isn't enough and if all i was able to do with my efforts in that given situation was to distract him or slow him down without harm to another, lives will be saved.

I would never be able to live with myself knowing someone could have been saved and i did nothing and that was the way i was raised. I hope everyone feels the same way.

As far as any who fear their skills or confidence are lacking I hope you practice and improve your skills as well as your confidence regardless of the real unlikelihood you would ever be given this choice.

[Tactical Jackalope]

Just because you want to help doesn't mean you're qualified to. How much force-on-force training have you had? Have you attended courses on active shooter response? If you haven't trained for this kind of encounter, and practiced to keep your skills up, the chance that you'll be able to do something useful isn't all that great, and the chance you'll be shot is bigger than you think. Hero fantasies, moralizing, and chest-thumping will not compensate for lack of training. (And one thing training may teach you is that intervening isn't necessarily a good idea... )

I agree on training being crucial. Very crucial. But the other side of the coin, once again that everyone overlooks even more so.

The bad guy. What makes them a professional? Why are they glorified as such "incredibly dangerous" killers? I doubt they took a class. Yet they're adequate enough in doing what they do in massive numbers.

I can guarantee from my gut feeling, and disagree openly if you want. I can assure you that most of the people who are civilians that have stopped an attack, saved their own lives, or saved someone else's. Did not have extensive training.

In Tuscon..The attacker was apparently shot at. While not hitting his mark the citizen retreated. When the attacker was reloading he was taken down by UNARMED civilians. I doubt they had any experience or extensive training in taking someone down.


So why do so many people glorify these killers? Who are they? People like you and I and that guy and this gal, etc etc.


People are cowering in fear already with just the thought of engaging someone in this situation. That's incredible. Why are so many citizens carrying guns then if it's just to look out for themselves. I wonder how many people watched coverage and though "this is so sad, if only I or another CC citizen was there to stop this."


And no "hero fantasies, moralizing, and chest-thumping" going on here.

How do you think police officers and military personnel are thinking of this type of question before they become police officers or military personnel?












I'd also like to add...Situations as disastrous as a mass shooting. People help other good people. We saw it 9/11, with Katrina, and in Boston. Are any of those people helping others "medically certified" enough to do so? Do they have a PhD in helping people and saving lives? Negative.

[deepcreek]

Reminds me of a news article I read the other day

"Man claiming to be Good Samaritan arrested on assault charge"
http://www.localnews8.com/news/man-t...z/-/index.html

[MLeake]

grizz223, I also tend to be the forward-leaning type, but I have learned over the years that many people are not, especially if a herd mentality kicks in. (Edit: the thing is, for some if not most people who carry, the percentages may not be as high as yours, and risk to third parties may be commensurately higher.)

Constantine, note that in the four examples I gave, the BG only "wins" in one. In the other three, it is not the superiority of the BG, but the wrong analysis or poor execution by the Samaritan that has a bad result.

I am all for training; I enjoy it, and I advocate it. However, training per se may not be that crucial in some scenarios - where it is very clear who the BG is, and that he is a threat to an innocent; where the shot afforded has a clear lane and is easily made, and is obviously necessary.

In all other cases, training is probably going to matter.

[Gaerek]

In Tuscon..The attacker was apparently shot at. While not hitting his mark the citizen retreated. When the attacker was reloading he was taken down by UNARMED civilians. I doubt they had any experience or extensive training in taking someone down.

He never fired. As a matter of fact, he did not arrive on scene until the unarmed bystanders had already subdued the shooter (I assume you're talking about the Gabby Giffords shooting). He got some flack because he mentioned in one interview that he was basically one decision away from shooting the guy that took the murderers gun. Instead, he ran up to that guy, and disarmed him, even though he wasn't the shooter. (Holding a gun like that after a shooting...probably a bad idea). The guy's name is Joe Zamudio. I've met him on a couple occasions. He uses the same range I use.

[Dragline45]

It really depends on a whole lot of variables.

What kind of gun do you have on you? If you have a .380 pocket pistol or a .38 snub, or even a 9mm pocket gun I would not engage in a shootout unless I had to, those are not gun fighting guns. Not only do you lack in capacity, but can you pull off accurate shots from cover past typical 20ft self defense distances? Could you under stress pull off a center mass or even head shot with your pocket pistol say at 30, 40, or even 50ft? Say you do return fire and you run your 6+1 gun empty and go through your spare 6 round magazine. Now you are defenseless and the main target of the gunman. Now sure if you are able to get the jump on the guy and take him out from a close distance than go for it, but it seems highly unlikely.

What kind of gun is the gunman using? Does he have any sort of body armor?

Are my family or friends with me, and can they get safely to cover before I open fire on the target. What about pedestrians around the gunman, will they be in the line of fire?

What kind of cover do you even have?

What kind of opportunity do you have to take the gunman out? Is he about to walk by you while you stay unnoticed where you can pop out and put him down quickly, or are you ducking behind a fountain 40ft away.

The list could go on, and if the chances of me intervening will be more likely to cause me and my family harm than good, than it is not worth it. Trying to stay alive is not cowardly, blindly jumping out into the open and start shooting when your chances are low is just foolish.

You're only wrong in having a discussion about it. If you're CCing, no one should know you're CCing.

Absolute rubbish, all my close friends and family know I carry. 50% of the discussions between me and some of my friends are firearms and carry related.

[Skadoosh]

I have come to have a different opinion about this since before my daughter was born a few years ago. Before then, I was of the opinion that I would readily jump to the rescue of a stranger. But now I realise the risks involved to me and my family that come with defending a stranger in circumstances that may be very sudden, muddled and cloudy at best.

I will defend me and mine...and only others if I am darn good and sure of the circumstances and only if I am able to minimize the risks to me and mine.

[Wreck-n-Crew]

I have to agree with Constatine that we often complicate our world and lack trust of one another.
I fully trust many people i shoot with and alongside in their capability to overcome a tough situation and make good decisions.

Just to add, and you know my support of law enforcement is positive, I have had an indecent recently in which over training, bad training, or complete trust in training and lack of instinct or follow through with my claim. It had him calling me a liar on a theft complaint. I offered him proof, he said i did't want it.

The very next day my wife was pulled over in my car and she was questioned if i had a drug problem or a gambling problem. Sad but true.

Now my point is his lack of trust. Though it should not affect his ability in a scenario like this, trust is the problem from the get go. Having training that encourages officers to believe nothing they hear as gospel is different than the evidence i proposed to offer him in rebuttal when i was the complainant to begin with.I doubt this will happen with Most LE encounters, i have more faith than that in their abilities.

When we have that mentality and lack of trust, are we no better that the anti-gun guys? They don't think we know how to wipe our own ass without providing the proper grade tp and 4 hours of class on it

One more case and point, on a newer show about live incidents and the 911 calls on A&E i think called something 911?

On two of those episodes i witnessed the 911 operator telling the person defending their home to put down their weapon. one did not and killed the intruder. He was armed with a 12" knife tucked into his pants.
The other put it down and was attacked and her gun picked up and used to attempt to rape her when the police made entry.
One one more of the 911 calls the operator was discouraging another woman from firing her weapon repeating in her ear on the phone "please don't shoot unless you have to" and "Try to wait on police they should be there soon". The woman thank god had a shotgun because she shot him less than 9 feet away.

I can name several more as well where people's cautionary tales can cause someone not to react or react in time and that is due to a lack of trust.

I believe that most people will do what they have to do. But if they don't and they are scared it may cost them.

Remember my post earlier about the woman i Know. She is the mother of a friend. Hesitated and shot with her own gun because she was afraid they could charge her with a crime and hoped to scare them.

I would suggest if you are scared to use it, get rid of it, it will get you killed faster than not having one to pull. whether we like or not it's the truth.

It doesn't mean i would discourage someone, rather the opposite. Learn, train and don't have it for just one scenario where you feel comfortable in defending yourself, but as many as you can imagine.

[zincwarrior]

I have no duty to anyone but my family. They come first. There are no other considerations. Call me what you want, just don't call me late for dinner.

Your mileage may vary.

[MLeake]

Wreck-n-Crew, what you attribute to not trusting others, I attribute to Murphy.

I have some background in threat identification; I compete regularly and am normally at or very near top of my IDPA club for accuracy (though there are several guys who are faster); I shot perfect handgun scores in my last several active, reserve, and contractor quals.

Even so, I would want to make very sure that I fully understood the situation, and that I could make a clean shot, and that I could get my wife, son, parents, whoever to safety before I tried to take a shot. If I could not meet those conditions, the odds of my armed intervention would drop dramatically.

My point is, if I would think twice or thrice before acting, then what should a minimally trained or untrained person do?

[tulsamal]

It does really depend on the situation. And in your personal situation. Put this question in the context of the Colorado movie theatre shooting. Guy jumps up on stage, throwing canisters into the crowd, wearing body armor and helmet, and starts shooting up the place with a rifle. Yes, I would be pushing my family to the ground and trying to crawl to safety with them. It would be crazy and loud and confusing. But if the bad guy up there keeps shooting more than a few seconds and I can literally see people all around me dying... I'm going to engage him. I would try to crawl away from my family first and I would be scared spitless but I would rather die gun in hand than be shot in the back as I crawl. Or watch the same thing happen to my wife or kids. The bad guy up there on stage just might change his actions when he realized one or more of his victims was shooting back. And my .357 SIG will penetrate most soft body armor. Hopefully the bad guy would see one muzzle flash and then realize he was hit. And going down.

Gregg

[Wreck-n-Crew]

Even so, I would want to make very sure that I fully understood the situation, and that I could make a clean shot, and that I could get my wife, son, parents, whoever to safety before I tried to take a shot. If I could not meet those conditions, the odds of my armed intervention would drop dramatically.

I thought I covered that already in a previews post so I'm trying to understand which of my post that is attributed to so that i take it in context.

My point is, if I would think twice or thrice before acting, then what should a minimally trained or untrained person do?

It should not take you that long to make a decision so i am wondering if you are over thinking it. When you chose to carry, those decisions and scenarios should have been covered within yourself before you first strapped it on you. As i believe you did.

I made that point in an earlier post and believe that most people making a decision to strap on a deadly weapon would realize the responsibility of doing so. It is the first thing you should think of when you consider carrying as a possibility.

Covered the thinking before acting too. As far as the minimally trained i briefly covered it but some details might be better. Going beyond the obvious and previous mentioned train and don't carry because one believes he will only need it @ X amount of feet and in the open public or at home I would add:

Being able to fire, own, clean, shoot accurately, do a safety check, and pass a ccw class means just that and nothing more.

The rest is in the person their, mentality and training. But we are adults and I trust that most every person who decides to own and carry, realize the responsibilities they have taken on and that they put more effort into understanding what to do and when to do it then what some give them credit for.

Adrenaline, first fear, hesitation are expected. But you must relate a carry person to more of a new recruit (police, Army Etc) (why do i get the feeling that contextually i am opening worms)to an extent as they have chosen to step up and take on the responsibility of carrying a deadly weapon.

Someone may freeze-up or they may not. Someone may panic and do something to hurt someone else when they shouldn't have, but that is assumption as to who would or how many and brings up the question how many times has it ever happened and in the scenario as given?

Now why again do we not trust people we don't know that have not gone out and made a mistake in a scenario like the one given?

Could it be our own self doubt causing us to doubt others more? Could it be that we think we have are more able than them? Could we be exaggerating the number of idiots getting CCW?

Just sticking to the one scenario only.... I think there is a lack of trust and for various reasons.

Want an example? Cheating on ones significant other is way more prevalent than what it use to be. Workers stealing from employer, people lying for what ever reason, lack of government trust....etc and the list gos on.

Trust has changed and when people look at their changing world they decline to trust anyone, and often ,but in such cases of ownership and carrying, as well as what to do if x happens is not warranted.

I believe that when the chips are down that private owners will be more responsible than what our fears would have us to believe.

[Dragline45]

It should not take you that long to make a decision so i am wondering if you are over thinking it. When you chose to carry, those decisions and scenarios should have been covered within yourself before you first strapped it on you. As i believe you did.

Unfortunately we cannot predict how these situations play out, and I disagree with what you call over thinking and saying it should not take you that long to make a decision. It's merely weighing your odds, and the human mind is pretty remarkable in that you can run the scenario through your head in a matter of seconds while making a decision to act or not. I would rather think smart than act dumb.

I also don't know why you keep going into lack of trust of others. Am I missing something here? I thought we were talking about whether you would open fire on a mad gunman in a public place with your CC weapon. It sucks that you had a bad run in with an LEO who did not trust your word, but I don't see how that has any bearing on the discussion.

[MLeake]

Wreck-n-Crew, it seems to me you are confusing two very separate issues, the first being the willingness to use a firearm when the need is clear, and the second being the willingness to use a firearm without determining need or feasibility.

Those are not the same, though you seem to treat them as such.

If a person attacks me with a deadly weapon, the odds are high that person will get shot, assuming I am not in a place where I can't carry. Then again, high odds aren't guaranteed odds.

For instance, if the attacker is already too close, my first reaction may well be to use unarmed techniques (at which I am quite proficient) to gain better position to draw and engage; those techniques could well result in a disarm before the weapon is drawn, and might result in a cessation of hostilities before the trigger is pulled.

I have ended fights with unarmed attackers on a couple occasions, simply by redirecting their attacks and taking their balance at the outset, at which point the idiots decided to find something else to do.

So, being willing and ready to draw could conceivably cause one not to get off the X, if they fixate on the draw, which could conceivably get one stabbed or bludgeoned while drawing....

Don't mistake caution or assessment for lack of willingness; don't mistake willingness for ability; don't mistake willingness for common sense. Those things are not necessarily exclusive, but they are also not necessarily aligned.