Am I wrong??

Status
Not open for further replies.
So let me get this right, to automatically say you'd do whatever you can to stop it. Is wrong. But to say right off the the bat that you will do nothing nor would you care is fine?

Morals today are lacking.

MLeake makes awesome points.

But my first question needs an answer.
 
Wow...really?

What has the world come to...That upsets me tremendously that people have that type of mentality.
Click to expand...

This is a very sticky wicket. Being trained is one thing. Being an off duty LEO is another and attempting to help in a situation you might not understand might have you attempting to subdue the good guy as opposed to the bad guy. I don't know that there is a good answer for this question or not.

It is a troubling scenario for sure.
 
I want to clarify my original statement. This is not a black or white issue. I overly simplified an active mass murder situation. The actions I would take would be directly based on the situation. I wouldn't automatically shoot on an active shooter just because I have a clear shot. I wouldn't automatically run for the exit with my family in the same situation. There are so many complex issues when it comes to this. I carry a gun, not because I'm afraid of a mass shooting and I want to be some kind of hero. I carry a gun as protection for myself and my family. That's the #1 thing. How that would actually play out in a shooting situation would depend on the situation.

Would I be against taking a shot at the shooter if I could? No. But that doesn't mean I would. Not shooting doesn't mean I don't care about others, it just means that it would be the right thing to do for the situation.

Running doesn't make me a coward either. It just means that it was the right thing to do for the situation.
 
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. Just my Two cents but I am required to act Regardless.
 
This is a very sticky wicket. Being trained is one thing. Being an off duty LEO is another and attempting to help in a situation you might not understand might have you attempting to subdue the good guy as opposed to the bad guy. I don't know that there is a good answer for this question or not.
Click to expand...

He was only responding to fact that the op stated he clearly would not use his weapon to save someone else in any scenario.

The op wrote his post to state that in no situation would he do so. The scenario was for reasons not to, but he made a final mental determination to never engage except to save him or his family.

I understand that he may not have meant it that way but the op stated his and his only so the response by Constantine was a response to the am i wrong question.

Given what was clearly stated and asked it was a proper and justified response to the statement and the question that followed. :)
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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)
Click to expand...


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?
 
nhbmaing said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
tahunua001 said:
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....
Click to expand...
grizz223 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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... :cool:)

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.
 
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.
 
Am I Wrong

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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... )
Click to expand...


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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top