Am I wrong??

Status
Not open for further replies.
Very simply put,
I must evaluate the situation.
I must base my actions on that evaluation
I must be accountable for my actions.

It really is that simple.
 
Wreck-n-Crew said:
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?
Click to expand...

This was in reference to something he had quoted from me:
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
Click to expand...

The thing is, the first two scenarios have happened any number of times. Do a search sometime for "plain clothes officer shot by police" and see how this scenario is not nearly as rare as we would like for it to be.

As far as the third scenario, look at what happened in NYC last year, with ricochets hitting several bystanders.

And those are just shootings involving cops (as the good guy shooters).

Similarly, as to the third scenario, go to an IDPA match sometime, and see how many people manage to hit the no-shoot targets over the course of an event.

The overall point being, people who see the situations under discussion as cut and dried have probably never tried to perform the types of shooting they might have to do in such a scenario.

If you think you might find yourself in such an encounter, and that you would want to try to take down the shooter, then it might be a good idea to try such training drills as:

Shoot a head shot on a target that is partially obscured by multiple no-shoot targets. Increase distances, or decrease allotted times, as you get better at it;

Shoot center mass on a target while you move behind cover;

Set up a moving target; try to score A zone hits; change target direction of movement between lateral, fore and aft, etc as able;

Shoot a target from around a barrier, exposing as little of yourself as possible.

Do these two-handed, then strong hand only, then weak hand only.

Add other drills as you like.

The point is, it's a good idea to know YOUR OWN LIMITATIONS. Bear in mind that performance when under fire will probably be degraded as compared to performance on a sterile range.

Complex decisions should not be made on minimal information; the more you know beforehand, the less you have to think about when things happen.
 
Similarly, as to the third scenario, go to an IDPA match sometime, and see how many people manage to hit the no-shoot targets over the course of an event.
Click to expand...

And you need to take into consideration the fact that no one is actually firing back at you.

To change the subject slightly, last I checked, there wasn't anything on my CCW application or an oath I took that said, "I promise to protect the public now that I will be carrying a gun." or something to that effect. I'm not carrying a gun to be a hero. I'm not carrying a gun to make society safer. I'm carrying a gun to protect myself, and my family. If that makes me a coward, then so be it. The first thing any respectable defensive handgun training will teach you is to stay away from bad situations, and try to get out of bad situations you find yourself in.

I'm not saying I wouldn't do something altruistic in an active mass murder situation...as a matter of fact, my very nature would compel me to do something. It would require willpower for me to think about my family (whether they are there or not) and add that into the equation of what I would do. Pax made a great point. It's why I get training, so that I can respond to the greatest number of threats possible. But I'm under no illusion to believe I'll be able to outshoot a murderer with an AR, 40 yards away, with my Glock 19. That would be near suicide.

That's why this is such a complex problem. There is no simple, "Yes I will do something," or "No, I won't do anything." Many people might lean one way or another, but when the balloon goes up, the situation will likely be something you've never considered, and you'll have to take about a dozen things into consideration in about a second to make your decision. Calling people a coward for inaction is incredibly low, and insulting. Having a CCW does not give you an obligation to act. We are not police. We are not sworn law enforcement. We are citizens, who for one reason or another have decided to not let muggers, rapists, violent robbers, murderers and crazy people decide our fates.

And adding to what MLeake has said. If you haven't done an IDPA match...go do one. If you've never done that kind of shooting before, you'll likely be amazed at how bad at it you are. We're talking things that you thought you were good at, like shooting a targets a mere 7 yards away. Things get much different when you have multiple targets, multiple no-shoots, required movement, required reloads (and make sure not to leave any partially filled mags on the ground!), shooting from awkward positions, and of course, the ever present pressure of the clock.
 
Last edited:
That's why this is such a complex problem. There is no simple, "Yes I will do something," or "No, I won't do anything." Many people might lean one way or another, but when the balloon goes up, the situation will likely be something you've never considered, and you'll have to take about a dozen things into consideration in about a second to make your decision. Calling people a coward for inaction is incredibly low, and insulting.
Click to expand...

Excellent point, Gaerek. I would add this:

  • Being a good and willing witness is NOT "doing nothing."

  • Calling the authorities is NOT "doing nothing."

  • Helping the wounded until first responders arrive is NOT "doing nothing."

  • Helping others escape the killing field is NOT "doing nothing."

There are a lot of actions a good and moral person can take that are NOT "doing nothing" -- and that also do not involve shooting the bad guy. Only doing nothing is doing nothing.

pax
 
Excellent point, Gaerek. I would add this:
Being a good and willing witness is NOT "doing nothing."

Calling the authorities is NOT "doing nothing."

Helping the wounded until first responders arrive is NOT "doing nothing."

Helping others escape the killing field is NOT "doing nothing."

There are a lot of actions a good and moral person can take that are NOT "doing nothing" -- and that also do not involve shooting the bad guy. Only doing nothing is doing nothing.
Click to expand...

You're absolutely right. I think I was trying to make this point in a round about way. When you're a hammer, all your problems look like nails. There are people who believe that since they are carrying, the only thing they can do in a situation like this is engage. It's certainly one thing you can do, but it's not always the best thing to do.
 
Here's my take on 3rd party scenarios...

Stay out of it.

In all likelihood, you do NOT know what's happening or even who the good/bad guy(s) might be. An undercover plainclothes officer could look like a scumbag. Or a scumbag could be dressed in a uniform. In my CCW class, it was made very clear to all in attendance that you're very likely to screw up and misidentify the parties involved or be considered a hostile by LEOs.

Stay out of it.
 
no one can say if your wrong or not, some might like or dislike your choice but its your choice, you dont have a responsibility or duty to protect the public

but at the same time if i had a gun on me, and someone started shooting in a mall, if i could safely take the shot i would
 
skoro said:
Here's my take on 3rd party scenarios...

Stay out of it.

In all likelihood, you do NOT know what's happening or even who the good/bad guy(s) might be. An undercover plainclothes officer could look like a scumbag. Or a scumbag could be dressed in a uniform. In my CCW class, it was made very clear to all in attendance that you're very likely to screw up and misidentify the parties involved or be considered a hostile by LEOs.

Stay out of it.
Click to expand...

There are several reasons you CCW course might have taught it this way, and it's possible your instructor disagreed with it.

1) the curriculum might have been designed by the state. There could be specific language that basically says they are required to teach that your first course of action should always be to attempt to get yourself out if the situation, regardless.

2) If 1) isn't the case, then the instructor might be trying to limit his liability. Lets say you decided to confront the shooter. But one of your bullets struck a bystander. You can bet your CCW instructor or someone familiar with the curriculum will be called to the stand in court. Teaching to always retreat means they can say, "I don't know why he confronted the shooter, but we didn't teach him that. We taught them to always remove themselves from the situation if at all possible.

I'm not saying that confrontation is the right option (as my above posts indicate), but its likely your CCW class was required to teach it that way regardless of what the instructor believed.
 
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. 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, but with chaos going on in an active shooter situation, I could be ID'ed as another attacker and taken out by another CCW holder or the police. 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.
Click to expand...

This is the exact policy put to me in two CC classes and drummed into us. You are not the Lone Ranger.
Your CC is for you and your family.
Obey the law regarding real self defense.
Be a good witness.
 
I'm not saying that confrontation is the right option (as my above posts indicate), but its likely your CCW class was required to teach it that way regardless of what the instructor believed.
Click to expand...

I've since renewed my Texas CHL and this wasn't part of the presentation, so I kinda doubt that it was a requirement back in 2008. The instructor was a retired SEAL and a bit of a hard core. He was citing cases from other states where a civilian intervened and either took a shot at an officer or was shot by officers assuming the good samaritan was another bad guy. Misidentifying the participants goes both ways in a 3rd party scenario.

I agree with the instructor. Unless I know for dead certain, I'll stay out of it. I'll try to be a good witness who can give a decent description of what I saw unfolding.
 
I'm with you too, I'm not saying I won't not take a shot, but my first inclination is to get away. Like I said, it might not be a state requirement either, but there is still very much a liability issue. And of course, he could be teaching it because he believes it. But he likely would have taught it that way even if he didn't believe it. My CCW instructor taught the class to always retreat first. When I asked him about this very issue during a break, he told me he was required to teach it that way, but wishes he could have told people to intervene if they had the opportunity to, in an effort to save lives.
 
In the distant past when I was young and stupid I have fired upon people I didn't know to protect other's that I didn't know. I was taught to run toward the fight, not away. And that an honorable man doesn't start fights, they finish them. If that is no longer politically correct in America, then it's probably a good thing that I'm old and won't be around much longer to cause embarrassment.

My above comment notwithstanding, there is a time and place to enter the fray, and each situation needs to be assessed on it's merits or lack thereof. In an active shooter situation or confrontation between two unknown parties I would probably not take action unless the players were clearly identified to me. There is right and wrong, and there is stupidity.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'll say this again. The biggest danger you're going to have as an armed citizen in an Active Shooting Situation is not from the shooter, but from another CCW carrier or responding police.

It's going to be chaotic at best. Anyone brandishing a gun is going to be suspect.

Rob Pincus covers this very well in his DVD so I wont step on toes and mention it here.
 
My above comment notwithstanding, there is a time and place to enter the fray, and each situation needs to be assessed on it's merits or lack thereof. In an active shooter situation or confrontation between two unknown parties I would probably not take action unless the players were clearly identified to me. There is right and wrong, and there is stupidity.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone is disagreeing with this. The point is that we don't know what the situation will entail ahead of time. We have people saying, "Oh yeah, if shots are fired, I'm heading in that direction to stop the shooting!" But that's not always going to be the best, or even the decision that saves the most lives. One only needs to look at the confusion following the Gabby Giffords shooting to see what I mean. The one guy with a CCW who went towards the directions of the shots almost shot a bystander (who happened to be holding the shooters gun). It's easy for us to say, "Well, he shouldn't have been holding the gun!!" and I'd agree with that. But that's not the point. The point is that we don't know who's a good guy or a bad guy unless we were there to see initially what happened.

Besides, there's a ton of things that can be done in these situations that don't require using your gun that can save lives. Unfortunately, we as shooters tend to look at all of these kind of situations in the context of "how can I use my gun to fix this problem" sort of like the hammer, to whom every problem looks like a nail. In one of Pax's posts, she gave a good list of things that can be done that will save lives, and don't require the gun. All of which are honorable, heroic, but don't require you to run towards the gunfire.
 
Back in the 80s, when William Cruse decided to shoot up the Publix and Winn Dixie grocery stores in Palm Bay, Florida, one of the big heroes of the day never fired a shot. That Samaritan drove his pickup truck through the shooting area, picking up some wounded and letting others move along beside his truck, using it as shelter against Cruse 's fire.
 
Am I wrong?

Wow, what a thread! I think we have gotten away from the OP's original question.... "Am I wrong?"

No, you are not. I'm with you in that I don't carry to protect the general public. It's not my job or responsibility. That doesn't mean I wouldn't given the right circumstances.

I think Doc back on post #52 has the most realistic view. That is the world we live in folks, like it or not. I would suggest that if you haven't read his post that you go back and do so.

I'm a child of the '50s and love to be the hero. I'm a bit older and wiser(I hope) now and tend to agree...."No good deed goes unpunished". This is no longer the country I was raised in. You can get sued into bankrupcy for trying to help. Or worse, go to jail.
 
I don't know how to edit my original post (sorry new here) but if the situation presented itself to end an active shooter situation I would end it. If I was with my family, their safety is #1 priority. I've trained quite a bit and am comfortable with my carry gun. I was talking to someone who is very skeptical of firearms in general and I didn't want the gun community to get any more bad press. Gotta be careful what you say to these people or right away you're a vigilante or some such. I hope this clears up the issue, and I have greatly enjoyed reading the debate on this thread. Both sides have hit some great points!
 
nhbmaing, it would be sorta confusing if you went back and edited it now, after over three pages of discussion, but... check your inbox. :)
 
This has been an interesting discussion, but I think there's not much else that can usefully be said. Thanks to all who have stayed polite and on-topic.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top