Am I wrong??

[zincwarrior]

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.

No, morally I have no duty whatsoever to help my fellow man. I have a moral duty to protect my family. I have a legal duty to obey applicable laws and pay taxes.

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.

Agreed. In the instance of a mall shooting (which has been addressed here I believe) a smart alternative is getting into a store, which should have a back exit, or if not, get into a defensible position. You can protect others who are with you and you are still protecting others.

Obviously if crazed nutjob just opens up in front of you then there is an option, but everything else truly depends on the situation no?

 

[SHE3PDOG]

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

If I understand correctly, the basic question is "Would I save someone's life even if by doing so it endangered my own?" Yes. Did I think about that before I enlisted? Yes.

That being said, I still have to agree with what JimmyR said:

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?

I think he hit the nail on the head with that.

 

[Tactical Jackalope]

If you have a chance to. Take it.

Good examples of what "if" means. I'm seeing a lot of good things. It's basically a dismissive no, unless this or that happens first. Which is progress.

But automatically dismissing it with a "hell no" is a little weak.

 

[kilimanjaro]

Seems to be a lot of second-guessing about intervening in a active shooter event, for some reason. Safeguard yourself, your family, and as many others as you can, before deciding to engage. You're going to have your pistol drawn and visible, no matter what you decide to do, so the danger of being mistaken by the cops for a shooter is just about the same.

You shoot the bad guy, then put your piece away or point it down and wait for the cops to turn up.

 

[Ben Dover]

"My own safety" was never a consideration for the brave men that I served with, nor is it for me.

My one question is:

"Am I doing the right thing" In reality, little else actually matters.

When I look at the man in the mirror tomorrow, will I be proud of him? Will my wife and children, and grand children be proud of him? Will my teen age daughter (actually, a grand-neice that my wife and I adopted) be able to hold her head high in front of her friends?

Certainly, one must decide if his actions will endanger others, if they will be effective, and many other questions. But in the final analysis, we will know what is right. Will we act accordingly?

 

[PH/CIB]

For all of those who would engage, Thank You! For all of those who would not engage, let us say you are not with your family or anyone you know and you do not engage when you see people being murdered because you might be injured or killed and what it might do to yourself or your family.

Now let us say your family or your loved ones are at the mall or a restaurant or a movie theater without you and they are being slaughtered by a mad gunman and there are all kinds of concealed carrying law abiding citizens there who like you choose not to become involved and let your family be murdered.

After you visit your murdered family at the morgue, do you then confront all those concealed carrying law abiding citizens who let your family be slaughtered and shake their hands and tell them what a good job they did, because you would have done the same thing and let their families be slaughtered in the same circumstances.

Insult edited - GEM

I would not engage where two or more armed parties are shooting at each other, if I did not know the parties and who the bad guys were. I would not engage if an armed person entered a mall or restaurant or movie theater and simply robbed everyone and left without hurting or killing anyone, but as soon as the first innocent fell, I would engage and would regret I did not engage sooner. It is not hard to tell who the bad guy is, he is the one with the firearm murdering unarmed civilians, last time I checked uniformed law enforcement, plainclothes policemen and undercover cops and law abiding concealed carrying citizens don’t do that.

Sure you might miss or shoot through the bad guy and wound or kill an innocent. But if you do not take the shot, how many more innocents will the bad guy wound or kill, probably a lot more than you would by taking the shot as he will probably kill and kill and kill and kill until someone stops him.

Insult Edited
GEM

 

[Gaerek]

I think the issue here is that it's probably a bad idea to say definitively "I will do something" or "I will not do something." No situation is Black and White. There is no way to prepare for every possible scenario. For me, if I am alone and my family is not with me, it comes down to, "Can I reasonably do something?" If the answer is yes, well, then I'll do something. If the answer is no, well, then that's the answer. If my family is with me, my #1 priority is them. I'm sorry, it sucks that the other people in the mall (in the stated scenario) aren't prepared, but if helping them means putting my family in danger, sorry, I'm saving my family, and I will be able to sleep at night because I was prepared, and my family is alive. Afterall, the reason I carry isn't to protect the public in general, it's to protect myself and my family. If I can help protect the public reasonably, I'll do so. But if I can't? Well, it's a shame that current society demonizes guns, and the idea of self defense so much that very few people prepare for it. That's not my problem.

After you visit your murdered family at the morgue, do you then confront all those concealed carrying law abiding citizens who let your family be slaughtered and shake their hands and tell them what a good job they did, because you would have done the same thing and let their families be slaughtered in the same circumstances.

This is a straw man, and you're making an appeal to emotion. As a responsible CCW holder, I am well aware of the responsibilities of carrying a firearm. I'm well aware of all the decisions that have to be made. Will I be sad in this circumstance? Of course I will. Will I tell the people who could have done something they did a good job? No, of course not. Chances are, I probably won't even know who they are. Will I blame them for what happened? Hell no. It was a crazy person who decided they wanted to commit mass murder.

You're trying to guilt people into acting when it might not be the best thing to do. If I am alone, I also have to think about the impact MY death might have on my family. That will be one less income, my kids won't have a father anymore, and my wife won't have a husband. Chances are, if I could, I would take a personal risk to help others...within reason. But I'm not going on a suicide mission to save the sheeple who think guns are evil, and that the police and mall cops will protect them.

In essence, I have to look at it the other way. What about my wife and kids looking over MY body at the morgue? Will they think I'm a hero? Possibly. But being a hero doesn't pay the bills. It doesn't give my wife and kids a husband and father. My wife has to figure out how to pay for the house payment without my income. My wife is going to have to try to teach my son how to throw and catch a baseball. My daughter won't have a father to dance with at her wedding. My son won't have a father to cheer for him at the homecoming game. That's the other side of this coin. There, I made your same argument from the other side. It goes both ways. That's why this is such a complicated issue, and bringing emotion into just doesn't work.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

OK, fans - we do not insult others by calling names. You can make you point without such.

I will edit such out to keep the thread going and some attaboys.

But be circumspect in your language.

 

[zincwarrior]

For all of those who would engage, Thank You! For all of those who would not engage, let us say you are not with your family or anyone you know and you do not engage when you see people being murdered because you might be injured or killed and what it might do to yourself or your family.

OK. At that point, as a poster noted above, I’m trying to get into a defensible situation with those around me also in the defensible situation (but not in my LOF). This I have thought about several times actually, or if I have an immediate clear shot and realize whats going on.

Now let us say your family or your loved ones are at the mall or a restaurant or a movie theater without you

Dude that means my wife. She’s armed with a cannon in her purse and is lethal at 15 yards. Tahts assuming she’s not in her minivan death machine. Wo to anyone if she’s in her death machine. She’ll run you over and not even realize (or care).

I think the issue here is that it's probably a bad idea to say definitively "I will do something" or "I will not do something." No situation is Black and White. There is no way to prepare for every possible scenario. For me, if I am alone and my family is not with me, it comes down to, "Can I reasonably do something?" If the answer is yes, well, then I'll do something. If the answer is no, well, then that's the answer. If my family is with me, my #1 priority is them. I'm sorry, it sucks that the other people in the mall (in the stated scenario) aren't prepared, but if helping them means putting my family in danger, sorry, I'm saving my family, and I will be able to sleep at night because I was prepared, and my family is alive. Afterall, the reason I carry isn't to protect the public in general, it's to protect myself and my family. If I can help protect the public reasonably, I'll do so. But if I can't? Well, it's a shame that current society demonizes guns, and the idea of self defense so much that very few people prepare for it. That's not my problem

good words

 

[K_Mac]

A subject that is very relevant to all of us. There have been many great points made for both caution and action, which as has been said are not mutually exclusive.

Morals and ethics are for philosophers.

There is plenty of room for discussion on the issue of our responsibility as a good Samaritans. There is no defense of the this statement though in my opinion. Morals and ethics are the foundation on which our society is built. The law of the jungle is is a brutal way of living that is at odds with any civilization.

 

[spacemanspiff]

After you visit your murdered family at the morgue, do you then confront all those concealed carrying law abiding citizens who let your family be slaughtered and shake their hands and tell them what a good job they did, because you would have done the same thing and let their families be slaughtered in the same circumstances.

Sounds to me like you are convinced that in every situation involving an active shooter, a law abiding armed citizen will win each and every time. I am not that naive.

 

[Ben Dover]

I do not desire to engage in an argument, but one statement must be challenged.

Morals and ethics are for philosophers??

That disturbs me greatly. While it is true that we, as ordinary people look to philosophers and religious leaders for moral and ethical guidance from time to time, we individually bear the responsibility for conducting our lives in a moral and ethical manner.

All who reside in a civilized society have an inner moral compass, or conscience, if you will, that tells us when we have acted in an ethical and moral manner, or failed to do so.

Whether you refer to it is as a conscience, "gut level feeling," or another term, it's always there. It is lacking only in sociopathic personality disorder.

Even non-sociopathic criminals who have been studied realized that their actions were "wrong" morally as well as legally.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Unfortunately, the actual basis for one judging what actions are moral is quite complex. There is no set moral compass.

One might think so - but that is because you are assuming your value set is universal. Or should be. That usually leads to simplistic analyses of what one should do when this debate comes up.

You decide if saving someone is worth your life. Is saving that life worth the disruption to your family? Is feeling sorry for yourself if you don't act, a good enough reason to act?

People make decisions on two levels. Quick and emotional, slower and rational.

If you want to discuss this seriously and without cliches - a good starting read is:

The Social Psychology of Prosocial Behavior by John F. Dovidio, Jane Allyn Piliavin, David A. Schroeder and Louis A. Penner (Apr 25, 2006)

If you say that you don't need to study up because you know what is moral and right and wrong from your gut - you make my point about simplistic views.

 

[Wreck-n-Crew]

As it always seems to be in threads of this nature, previous post get lost, translations or context can be missed, previous statements in post get missed, etc. It's the nature of the beast!

Keep in mind that we are human and some good points were made and good ones are often missed. When the thread reaches multiple post's, the beast comes out.

The big "GUN_RUN" has left many believing that the majority of buyers and ccw people getting new permits in some states, are a large number of new people with little to no experience carrying guns. Not True. I hear all of the long-timers talk about it and many of them believe the same.

There are some TFL members here who teach classes and they can probably give you similar numbers as i get from someone that i know that is a CCW class instructor. He is seeing an average of %5 or less new to guns people.

He also has a harder time filling the class and the number of new to guns people are dropping in percentage. In the last 3 classes of 25 people he had 2.

The reason for me bringing this up and how it relates is that the small number of newbies and the combination of the highly unlikely odds that one of the newbies will be the person in the scenario is a real big what if.

Also those low percentage of newbies have to be added to the already experienced ccw holders

Play with it, talk about it and throw it in if you want just because it is possible no matter how very unlikely.

Add to it that most malls ban CCW from the premisses and you have an even unlikelier scenario than you thought you started with.

Even if it were to happen the odds are it won't be a newbie to guns though that doesn't make them "unqualified" it doesn't mean they can't be as effective, if they choose to. Still a big what if.

I would like to add that experience adds to one's ability. But most people seem to be wanting that experience to come from LE or Military training before they would consider them to be able to perform in the scenario if they chose to or had to do so.

Just because someone is professionally trained, does not mean that you have to be as well before engaging someone in a mall shooting up people or that you can't do so with great effectiveness.

I don't know where it comes from exactly, but i can see why from my own experience why i could have doubt in someone Else's abilities without knowing what they are capable of.

I own a business and people question my abilities as a professional all the time. Not that they think I am a rip off, just if there is not a better way, or could i be wrong in my assessment. Usually the fear is replaced with trust or a "here's your chance" mentality. They don't trust a professional...to know how to do his job...Why? It's the mentality of most people.

If you gave me a choice between me with my CCW and the "madman" in a mall waiting for police...I know I have what they don't, Someone with a gun, that knows how to use it in that scenario. That's all...nothing more.

I would also prefer a stranger with a CCW there than no one at all. Just about the odds versus outcome with long awaited support possibility from LE.

You may differ and would rather that no one interfere and that's one side of the coin. Others would rather see the other side and take the chance that an armed CCW person can save lives.

Either way, I don't sell people short and i believe that people will prevail in the long run and for me personally, I hope that if the scenario ever happens, it ends in no loss of innocent life from any gun.

 

[MLeake]

Again with the straw man argument...

I don't think anybody has said, "Hey, YOU! You over there! Don't even think about helping, you will only muck things up!"

What some of us have said is that before we will act, there are some things we will probably consider. (Of course, some situations will not allow much time for reflection, but what are the odds the scenario will start immediately under our noses?)

Those considerations include likelihood of success; likelihood of harms to others; likelihood of harms to our own.

I mentioned that I have pretty good abilities, but would still have to consider some factors. This was not to say that less trained people should do nothing, but to say that I could easily see why they would be hesitant.

This whole issue of trusting others to be able to do stuff is something you have made up, IE a StrawMan.

 

[pax]

As predicted in my first post, the thread seems to have neatly split into two camps, with each camp determined to insult the people in the other camp for their (im)morality and poor choices. Makes me sad, but I guess it's human nature.

Maybe we can advance the discussion a little by pointing out that some people seem to equate willingness to act with ability to act effectively. The two are not the same thing.

Firearms can be used defensively in one of three ways.

1) As a threat, unfired. This is by far the most common use of the defensive handgun. Bad guy approaches, good guy shows a gun, bad guy runs away, end of story. This level of use requires absolutely no training whatsoever in order to be effective.

2) As a close contact weapon. Bad guy comes so close you can smell the scum on his teeth. You draw and fire. Bad guy falls down or runs away, end of story. This requires a low level of shooting skill and a slightly higher level of gun-manipulation skill (eg being able to draw quickly enough to save your own life). A very small amount of training can get you to this point.

3) As a ranged weapon. Bad guy is across the room from you, or across a large public space such as a mall, perhaps as far as 75 yards from your position. He is surrounded by running, screaming, moving, yelling innocents. He is moving -- perhaps very quickly. Most likely, he is not facing you directly, but may be quartered away. The light may be poor (as in the Colorado theater). There may be other distractions, such as the sobbing of your own terrified, injured children. Using a defensive handgun as a ranged weapon under these circumstances takes a much higher level of skill than most untrained people realize.

As an aside, Nick Melli effectively used the lowest, "show a gun" level of response on the active shooter in the Clackamas Mall last December. Unusually, it worked. A more common outcome for a similar action would be the one experienced by Dan McKown, who lives in a wheelchair following his failed attempt to stop an attacker in the Tacoma Mall about a decade ago.

One final observation. Whenever a subject like this comes up, I see a lot of evidence of the Dunning-Kruger Effect at work. People without training often mistakenly believe they have a lot more ability to effectively respond to a mass murder event than they actually do. Unfortunately, the only way to remove their misconceptions is for them to go get the training they don't think they need. Talk about a Catch 22!

pax

 

[BobCat45]

The original poster said something that I understood one way, but it seems everyone else understood it a different way. He wrote, in part:

"I was having a discussion about why I carry a handgun. I was asked "oh, so if some crazy person starts shooting in a mall, you can take him out?" My answer was no. My gun is there to protect me and my family, not the general public."

Now, I've failed to quote the balance of his post but it is still there at the head of this thread. The first sentence contains the important.point.

My understanding of the gambit, ""oh, so if some crazy person starts shooting in a mall, you can take him out?" was that the person asking the OP this was in reality belittling him, suggesting that carried a handgun in order to be a "hero" or Batman or some self-aggrandizing "wanna-be" savior with an inflated sense of his own ability and worth. It seems like an attack, not an honest question.

His answer that no, he carried the gun to protect himself and his family, not the general public, did not seem to me to entail the proposition that he would not intervene to save the general public if the chance presented itself - only that he did not carry specifically for that purpose. The OP can clarify this if he sees fit to do so.

Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm reading too literally, maybe I'm reacting to those who, in the past, have accused me of "wanting to save the world" - while they choose not to carry, but rather to depend on "the authorities" and on the odds against "it" happening when and where they happen to be.

"Responsibility" is circumstantial. My responsibility is to provide for my wife. If she is present, I'll do my best to keep her safe - whether that means shooting an attacker (given the opportunity, and a lot of luck) or inducing her to move to a safer place (like out the back door). She is a stubborn woman but will move to safety if the situation clearly warrants it.

If she is safe at home, my situation is quite different. I'm within 2 years of retirement and have life insurance through my employer. I pay a little extra (Supplemental Life) and she will get 5 years of my salary if I die before I retire. I'm literally worth more dead than alive.

If she is safe I see my responsibility as a Citizen to use whatever tools and skill I have to end a gratuitous attack on innocent people. Even people who are legally capable of having a CHL (i.e. adults, not prohibited persons) but have chosen not to.

Best case, I subdue the attacker and pay legal bills, am exonerated. Next best, I end the attack but loose my life. Worse if I fail to subdue the attacker and loose my life. Worst case, I'm crippled and a burden.

If she is safe at home and I bug out instead of engaging the attacker, allowing him to keep shooting until the cops arrive - I'd better not go home, she will be so disgusted with me that getting shot would be a better deal.

So to the OP - No you are not wrong! You seem to have a good handle on why you have chosen to carry a handgun. May you never have to use it for real.

 

[Koda94]

and I thought CCW was about taking responsibility for your own safety, who purchased a CCW solely or in part for protecting the public?

My gun is there to protect me and my family, not the general public. That is the job of police officers, which I am not. My first goal would be to get out unharmed and only use my weapon if absolutely necessary. I was told this is a selfish attitude...........It's a complicated situation but at the end of the day the goal is survival, not being a hero. Maybe I'm not getting it.

No, you are not wrong and you do get it. I wish more folks understood this too. Your gun is your choice to protect yourself or your family.... get it. The ability to help others is not the same as the opportunity to help others. I have no doubt that if the opportunity to help others arrived most anyone would, but to make that a demand just because you have the ability is pure foolishness bravado. I have no problem with those who make the choice to risk their lives for others, but don't mentally train yourself to do something automatically without the opportunity to do it right. I don't think its selfish to take that into consideration. Examples cited by Pax above...

 

[Wreck-n-Crew]

Again with the straw man argument...

I don't think anybody has said, "Hey, YOU! You over there! Don't even think about helping, you will only muck things up!"

Did I directly accuse someone of that? I hope i didn't. If you find that in my post let me know so that i may apologize

My statements were a response to the post here:

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 know we have differing opinions but if someone asks if one is qualified or had training and give the opinion it as a bad idea and the and i draw a conclusion that they would prefer someone with training do so, because it was stated, would that be a bad assumption?

You made cautionary statements that suggest you wonder yourself here:

A CCW type who chooses to engage an active shooter can easily put others at risk.

1) He could misinterpret a situation, and engage a victim who was already engaged in lawful self-defense;

2) She could misinterpret the situation, and engage another armed Samaritan or a plainclothes cop;

3) He could engage a valid target, but miss and end up shooting innocents;

Why would someone do that? Because they were not experienced? Trained ? Qualified? My point being made was as to who is judging the qualifications of another? Furthermore why is it being often referred to if someone was not questioning the ability of some?

I agreed in an earlier post with the assumption that some shouldn't and could cause more harm than good. Then I pointed out that the "Newbie's every where" mentality exist and that in reality it is exaggerated as to the numbers. Also that the likelihood of the scenario, was even less likely than most due to the location.

When you have a very unlikely scenario with very little newbies among ccw the likelihood for one of them to be the person there reaches big lottery proportions.

Then I made my point that I would rather a stranger be there for protection rather than no one. You saw why in my response. I take it you disagree. I respect your point as to why.

Even though you didn't know Grizz223 was a deputy sherriff at the time did you assume he was someone he's not remember?

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

The point I was making was assuming someones abilities . It's not that i was making it up about how the trust of others is lacking. If you didn't trust grizz223's response as a deputy sheriff, before you knew he was a deputy do you trust it now?

Would it be fair if i presumed by your term "LEAN FORWARD" that somehow you were a supporter of Rachel Maddow ? That you where here to disrupt our beliefs?

That would be very unfair, even a little passed uncalled for and assumptive. Go's back to my problem with assumptions as to who can do what and when we go there we stretch a scenario past the point it was intended if we assume that they may not be making the best choice for reasons for lack of what? Presumed possible ability in a scenario with very little odds a ccw will be ther to begin with because most malls don't allow CCW?

Straw Man arguement definition: (A straw man or straw person, also known in the UK as an Aunt Sally,[1][2] is a type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[3] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and to refute it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.[3][4] This technique has been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly in arguments about highly charged, emotional issue)

..did I follow a position in a statement and debate it or was I simply trying to divert the argument with the false claim that someone did make a statement that i never proved?

 

[orionengnr]

I agree that there will very likely be circumstances and complications that you had not foreseen, or that were not foreseeable.

Just for starters, as pax said...what if he is 75 feet...or 75 yards away?
What if he is firing an AK and you have your trusty LCP?

No matter how badly you want to do what you consider "the right thing", circumstance may intervene.

That's why we "never say never or always".