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.
Am I wrong??
- Thread starter nhbmaing
- Start date
- Status
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
New member
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.
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.
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.
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.
Last edited:
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.
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
New member
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.
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
New member
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.
Your mileage may vary.
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?
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?
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
Gregg
Wreck-n-Crew
New member
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.
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
New member
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.
Last edited:
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.
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.
You are 100% right! You are not a sworn officer, and public safety is not your job, nor duty. In todays litigous culture it would be foolish on your part. That said, morally you have a duty to help your fellow man. Everything in life's a compromise. It's good to see responsible citizens pondering these questions before they arm themselves. Leave it to armed citizens to be responsible in todays day and age.
Doc Intrepid
New member
"No good deed goes unpunished".
IMO the matter of whether or not armed civilians should intercede or not isn't merely one of tactics, ethics, morals, situational parameters, or civic responsibility.
In today's world, to not recognize the price that you may pay -- even in cases where you did the right thing, the right way, at the right time -- is naive.
You can do everything "right", (tactically, ethically, morally, etc.) and still pay a huge price.
As one example, some people need a security clearance to perform their jobs. Any arrests will result in that security clearance being, at least temporarily, suspended pending investigation. If you are involved in a shooting incident as an armed civilian, there's a better than average chance you'll be arrested. You'd be wise to hire a lawyer. You'll be needing some time off work. Expect to lose your security clearance, because one of the requirements for security clearances is that if you're arrested you have a very limited amount of time to call your agency and notify them of your arrest. After you lose your security clearance, you're potentially looking at months off work, while a re-investigation is launched - not by the police, but by the US Office of Personnel Management (and other agencies) who investigate and authorize federal security clearances.
So - you can do everything tactically and ethically correctly in what appears to be a righteous shooting, and you're still out nearly ten thousand dollars in lawyer's fees and you've effectively lost your job. (And that's if it doesn't go to trial.) And this is even before a decision has been made by the DA regarding whether you'll be charged or not.
Everything you did or failed to do during the few seconds of a gun battle will be scrutinized in both the calm, cold light of the DA's offices, and in the media - which might not proclaim you the guy who did the right thing.
And lets not forget that you've now potentially opened yourself up to civil suits as well, from the "victim" you shot if he survives, or from the deceased's estate if he didn't survive. Depending on the whim of fate, you could lose your savings, your home, and a whole lot more.
Oh, and of course the reputation you now have among your family, friends, and community, as the person who killed someone - right, wrong, or otherwise.
Moreover, there are good samaritans who did the ethically correct thing to aid those in need, who subsequently wound up in wheelchairs because they stopped bullets.
When you stop to consider all the ramifications of interceding in even a shooting that is morally or ethically justifiable, you might conclude that you're in fact not a sworn LEO, you are not held to a higher standard, and you are under NO obligation to ruin your life to respond to a situation you neither asked for nor are trained to respond to.
Morals and ethics are for philosophers.
Legally armed civilians would do well to ponder just exactly what they will intercede to protect, when the cost of interceding could be the loss of nearly everything they've worked for all their lives.
Just MHO. YMMV.
IMO the matter of whether or not armed civilians should intercede or not isn't merely one of tactics, ethics, morals, situational parameters, or civic responsibility.
In today's world, to not recognize the price that you may pay -- even in cases where you did the right thing, the right way, at the right time -- is naive.
You can do everything "right", (tactically, ethically, morally, etc.) and still pay a huge price.
As one example, some people need a security clearance to perform their jobs. Any arrests will result in that security clearance being, at least temporarily, suspended pending investigation. If you are involved in a shooting incident as an armed civilian, there's a better than average chance you'll be arrested. You'd be wise to hire a lawyer. You'll be needing some time off work. Expect to lose your security clearance, because one of the requirements for security clearances is that if you're arrested you have a very limited amount of time to call your agency and notify them of your arrest. After you lose your security clearance, you're potentially looking at months off work, while a re-investigation is launched - not by the police, but by the US Office of Personnel Management (and other agencies) who investigate and authorize federal security clearances.
So - you can do everything tactically and ethically correctly in what appears to be a righteous shooting, and you're still out nearly ten thousand dollars in lawyer's fees and you've effectively lost your job. (And that's if it doesn't go to trial.) And this is even before a decision has been made by the DA regarding whether you'll be charged or not.
Everything you did or failed to do during the few seconds of a gun battle will be scrutinized in both the calm, cold light of the DA's offices, and in the media - which might not proclaim you the guy who did the right thing.
And lets not forget that you've now potentially opened yourself up to civil suits as well, from the "victim" you shot if he survives, or from the deceased's estate if he didn't survive. Depending on the whim of fate, you could lose your savings, your home, and a whole lot more.
Oh, and of course the reputation you now have among your family, friends, and community, as the person who killed someone - right, wrong, or otherwise.
Moreover, there are good samaritans who did the ethically correct thing to aid those in need, who subsequently wound up in wheelchairs because they stopped bullets.
When you stop to consider all the ramifications of interceding in even a shooting that is morally or ethically justifiable, you might conclude that you're in fact not a sworn LEO, you are not held to a higher standard, and you are under NO obligation to ruin your life to respond to a situation you neither asked for nor are trained to respond to.
Morals and ethics are for philosophers.
Legally armed civilians would do well to ponder just exactly what they will intercede to protect, when the cost of interceding could be the loss of nearly everything they've worked for all their lives.
Just MHO. YMMV.
Wreck-n-Crew
New member
Dragline the trust issue was in a previous post ( more than one). It relates to the post made about how inexperience can affect decisions and how the lack of trust of people cause them to assume people won't be able to make them if/or when the time comes. You would have to go back and read the last five or ten post starting with Constatines post to my last one.
When the time comes, decisions are made quickly and if your head is crammed with over-thoughts you are in trouble. I am sure we have some LE or military guys who would confirm that for me.
Basic training on when and when not to shoot covers the decisions that need to be made. Once you know when to and when not to engage and where to and where not to shoot, as well as if you can or if you can't, you can make a quick decision when or if the time comes.
When we question the basics, other peoples knowledge of the basics, their inability to follow the basics, their ability to follow through, their ability to remember them, their ability to not panic, their ability to aim, etc...etc...all to say it's complicated or not easy is taking away from what we should be doing....keeping it simple and confined so that god forbid they ever have to be in that scenario, they won't doubt or hesitate or make a mistake because their head was full of simple dos' and don't s.
More people also know them more then what one might think. That's how we got to the trust issue.
Ask yourself how do you think the anti gun people came to the conclusion that guns should be banned or heavily regulated? Lack of trust
Keep it clean, have fun and don't over think it guys I'm checking out on this thread...>>>>>Poof!>>>>>>>>>>
When the time comes, decisions are made quickly and if your head is crammed with over-thoughts you are in trouble. I am sure we have some LE or military guys who would confirm that for me.
Basic training on when and when not to shoot covers the decisions that need to be made. Once you know when to and when not to engage and where to and where not to shoot, as well as if you can or if you can't, you can make a quick decision when or if the time comes.
When we question the basics, other peoples knowledge of the basics, their inability to follow the basics, their ability to follow through, their ability to remember them, their ability to not panic, their ability to aim, etc...etc...all to say it's complicated or not easy is taking away from what we should be doing....keeping it simple and confined so that god forbid they ever have to be in that scenario, they won't doubt or hesitate or make a mistake because their head was full of simple dos' and don't s.
More people also know them more then what one might think. That's how we got to the trust issue.
Ask yourself how do you think the anti gun people came to the conclusion that guns should be banned or heavily regulated? Lack of trust
Keep it clean, have fun and don't over think it guys I'm checking out on this thread...>>>>>Poof!>>>>>>>>>>
Dragline45
New member
Wreck-n-Crew said:
I am going to disagree and say acting without thinking is what gets you killed. Take cover, assess the situation, and act accordingly. Those few seconds you take to assess the situation and come up with a sound plan can be what saves your life. Sure decisions must be made quickly, but I don't think anyones planning on hunkering down over a cup of tea and crumpets while they think about what to do. Like I said before, 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.
That would be under the assumption that all scenarios play out the same, they do not.
Last edited:
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
1. Could you live with yourself if you shot and innocent or you didn't save someone?
Excuse me but this is a meaningless cliche. Do you mean that you couldn't handle the psychological consequences?
a. We have folks going through significantly more horror and with support and therapy - they get through it.
b. Are you just afraid of public opinion? Suck it up on that and do what's right in your mind.
2. If I act to save your wife and get killed, do you pledge to support mine for the rest of her life? I always ask that.
I've studied the literature on this and there is NO correct answer. Do you live a life of poverty to give your salary to the deserving poor?
Or is it the idea of being a gun toting hero that is attractive as compared to the other altruistic things you could be doing now.
My point is that the motivations (emotional) and rational analyses are very complex and there is no simple moral clarity.
Excuse me but this is a meaningless cliche. Do you mean that you couldn't handle the psychological consequences?
a. We have folks going through significantly more horror and with support and therapy - they get through it.
b. Are you just afraid of public opinion? Suck it up on that and do what's right in your mind.
2. If I act to save your wife and get killed, do you pledge to support mine for the rest of her life? I always ask that.
I've studied the literature on this and there is NO correct answer. Do you live a life of poverty to give your salary to the deserving poor?
Or is it the idea of being a gun toting hero that is attractive as compared to the other altruistic things you could be doing now.
My point is that the motivations (emotional) and rational analyses are very complex and there is no simple moral clarity.
Sometimes I'm glad that I'm an old man (73) and don't have many more years left.
As I posted earlier, this is a complex situation, and there is no "right" answer for all situations.
However, after reading this thread all the way through, the idea that a man would refuse to act when his Creator (or fate if you prefer) places him in a position to save innocent lives, just goes against everything that I was taught and have believed throughout my life about Americanism and about manhood.
I have had the honor and privilege of serving with and leading brave men. I have tried to live my life as a brave and honorable man. A life befitting an officer and a gentleman. That has caused me problems from time to time. Nevertheless, my firm belief is that when I stand before the Judgement Seat, I will be judged on my actions. And I will be accountavble for my sins of omission as well as commission.
I do not envy the young people of today, but I do pray for them. In all probability, thery will never have the opportunity, and the joy, of knowing the America that I knew.
As I posted earlier, this is a complex situation, and there is no "right" answer for all situations.
However, after reading this thread all the way through, the idea that a man would refuse to act when his Creator (or fate if you prefer) places him in a position to save innocent lives, just goes against everything that I was taught and have believed throughout my life about Americanism and about manhood.
I have had the honor and privilege of serving with and leading brave men. I have tried to live my life as a brave and honorable man. A life befitting an officer and a gentleman. That has caused me problems from time to time. Nevertheless, my firm belief is that when I stand before the Judgement Seat, I will be judged on my actions. And I will be accountavble for my sins of omission as well as commission.
I do not envy the young people of today, but I do pray for them. In all probability, thery will never have the opportunity, and the joy, of knowing the America that I knew.
Frank Ettin
Administrator
But that still raises a number of issues --Ben Dover said:
- Are you really in a position to do that? What is happening? Do you know what is happening? How well do you really understand the situation? A decision needs to start with an assessment of what is going on.
- What would you need to do? Do you have the necessary skills to carry out your plan? Can you avoid making things worse?
- The best plan under your particular circumstances might not involve engaging the threat. The best idea under the particular circumstances might be to collect innocents and help get them to a place of safety. Or maybe something else would be the best idea. Saving lives doesn't necessarily involve shooting the threat (although it might). The Gifford situation was resolved by citizens without the use of guns.
- And as Glenn has alluded to, what are your responsibilities to your family?
The ethics of discussion are fascination. OP, you opened a can of worms, and I think I like it.
Personally, I think my reaction is based on a series of priorities:
1) Is my family safe? This has to be my top priority, and any action I take must be to help achieve this goal.
2) Am I safe? Once my loved ones are reasonably safe, I have to decide if i think I have a reasonable expectation of surviving unharmed. Do I have cover? Do I have a shot where I can remain out of the shooters line of fire? Do I have sufficient firepower and ammunition to reasonably expect success?
3) Will I help more than hurt? Will my engaging in the situation will do more harm than good? Do I have a clear shot, and do I know what my target is and what is beyond it?
If I can't address all three satisfactorily, then my best option is to escape the situation if I am able.
Actual results may vary.
Personally, I think my reaction is based on a series of priorities:
1) Is my family safe? This has to be my top priority, and any action I take must be to help achieve this goal.
2) Am I safe? Once my loved ones are reasonably safe, I have to decide if i think I have a reasonable expectation of surviving unharmed. Do I have cover? Do I have a shot where I can remain out of the shooters line of fire? Do I have sufficient firepower and ammunition to reasonably expect success?
3) Will I help more than hurt? Will my engaging in the situation will do more harm than good? Do I have a clear shot, and do I know what my target is and what is beyond it?
If I can't address all three satisfactorily, then my best option is to escape the situation if I am able.
Actual results may vary.
Well believe it or not, this is simple to me, I am 77 YOA, carry a Glock 19 every day, and can use it!
If I am in a mall, I will be with my lovely Wife of 20 years, my job, looking after her, I do it every day.
If looking after Pauline corresponds to shooting some one dead? So be it.
If I am in a mall, I will be with my lovely Wife of 20 years, my job, looking after her, I do it every day.
If looking after Pauline corresponds to shooting some one dead? So be it.
- Status