Mannlicher
New member
I don't see that at all. The reports I have seen show that nationwide, there are almost no instances of folks with a CHL, engaging the enemy other than as the result of a direct attack on them.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
CHL and Vigilantes
- Thread starter firefox
- Start date
Jeff Gonzales
New member
All you have to do...
All you have to do is justify your own actions.
All you have to do is live with your own action/inaction.
All you have to do is do the right thing.
Life is so simple...isn't it.
Later,
All you have to do is justify your own actions.
All you have to do is live with your own action/inaction.
All you have to do is do the right thing.
Life is so simple...isn't it.
Later,
All you have to do is justify your own actions.
All you have to do is live with your own action/inaction.
All you have to do is do the right thing.
Life is so simple...isn't it.
exactly........
Crime in progress, involving you in some way? Do your civic duty, not vigilantism.
Catch a suspect after the fact somehow? Call the police, mebbe try to hold 'em? Civic duty again.
Gun 'em down? You are a vigilante and quite possibly a murderer. I hope you enjoy prison, psycho.
Catch a suspect after the fact somehow? Call the police, mebbe try to hold 'em? Civic duty again.
Gun 'em down? You are a vigilante and quite possibly a murderer. I hope you enjoy prison, psycho.
Carebear
Maybe you misinterpitted me or I was not as clear as I hoped or both.
If one sees a crime in progress and interveen he is a citizen and not a vigilante as the libel press likes so much to make such situations seem.
That's all I meant by both the quote and my response.
-L7
Maybe you misinterpitted me or I was not as clear as I hoped or both.
If one sees a crime in progress and interveen he is a citizen and not a vigilante as the libel press likes so much to make such situations seem.
That's all I meant by both the quote and my response.
-L7
If CHL holders had the propensity for vigalantism that FF thinks, then the newspapers would be littered with hundreds and thousands of articles about the subject. FF, can you produce any of these articles? Can you provide any real statistics to back your claim, other than your own "observations?"
You need to learn the difference between reality and the rambilings of a few internet blowhard warrior-wannabes.
You need to learn the difference between reality and the rambilings of a few internet blowhard warrior-wannabes.
I just got interested in guns again a few months ago, so its fun to look at different threads online.
One thread will say "someone broke into my house, and I shot him getting through the window"
Replies will be "Hurrah, good job, way to go, way to act accordingly"
Another will say "someone broke into my house, I told him to leave, shot him when he went to the bedroom where my family was"
Replies will be "Hurrah, good job, way to go, way to act accordingly"
And finally the "someone broke into my house, I told him to leave, it was my neighbor, he was drunk and had the wrong house.
Replies will be "Hurrah, good job, way to go, way to act accordingly"
One thread will say "someone broke into my house, and I shot him getting through the window"
Replies will be "Hurrah, good job, way to go, way to act accordingly"
Another will say "someone broke into my house, I told him to leave, shot him when he went to the bedroom where my family was"
Replies will be "Hurrah, good job, way to go, way to act accordingly"
And finally the "someone broke into my house, I told him to leave, it was my neighbor, he was drunk and had the wrong house.
Replies will be "Hurrah, good job, way to go, way to act accordingly"
DarkKnight01
New member
Hmm after reading all this... the only thing that comes to mind is a favorite saying of mine
"Some people are just stupid... Theres nothing you can do about it."
"Some people are just stupid... Theres nothing you can do about it."
D.S. Brown
New member
Firefox,
It is not vigilanteism to respond appropriately to violence directed at you or other persons outside of your home or in the public domain. It is not vigilanteism to respond to an act of aggression with aggression. A reasonable person does not have to rely upon the good nature of a violent individual who isprepared to commit a crime against him or herself. Your passiveness is unreasonable
I to am a CHL holder in Texas and I teach a basic drawing from concealment class to CHL holders. I think you may have missed the use of force continuum portion of your CHL class. Not every situation that you may find yourself in is one in which a gun needs to be drawn. In the vast majority of of situations one can just walk away or use some type of chemical deterrent. Most people do not fair well in a stand up fight against some violent criminal, think the elderly, most average build women and most men. What I'm trying to say is that you missed the part where your instructor presented many options to dealing with a violent encounter before a gun is drawn. It makes me wonder if you really possess a CHL from Texas. Where did you take the training from to receive the CHL?
In my instruction to CHL holders I let them know that they don't have the right to go to places they would have normally avoided without the gun, now that they carry.
I understand your stance against vigilantes, however I think you have your terms confused and many here have tried to correct you to no avail. Truthfully I think you and many others would be better served if you chose NOT to hold a CHL. Whereas vigilanteism is dangerous your passive stance about violent encounters is on the opposite end of that spectrum and is equally dangerous. I would want someone that was a lawful CHL holder to intervene on behalf of my loved ones if a violent crime was occurring in their presence or worse having it directed at them. BTW having worked for a sheriffs department I am not quite so enamored with the training or proficiency in firearms of many law enforcement officers.
Again this isn't meant as a slam but I would seriously re-evaluate your position of holding a CHL. There is clearly a difference between what you term vigilantes and your position, which amounts to armed-nonviolent-passive resistance. Keep guns in the house if you must but I would rethink that as well. I think the best advice I could give you if you plan to continue to carry a firearm for personal protection, (which persons we don't know), is to take a class on combat mindset. The latter is something lacking in most CHL instruction and should be sought out privately. I believe Sigarms Academy offers a class called the Bulletproof Mindset for civilian CHL holders and leo's/military. At the very least you can decide if you want to carry or not and have it be an informed decision. Until then I wouldn't carry. I think your stated passivity makes you too dangerous to yourself and others. Again not a slam. We all do our civic duty in various ways. Trust me you are not the first, and not the last CHL holder I've recommended this to. It's kind of like this, many students know that I was in the Army and ask if they should join. I tell them that there are people suited for military service and those that are not. Sometimes those who are unsuited adapt and even excell, however the vast majority of people unsuited for military service do their country a greater service by NOT joining.
Good Luck!
Best,
Dave
It is not vigilanteism to respond appropriately to violence directed at you or other persons outside of your home or in the public domain. It is not vigilanteism to respond to an act of aggression with aggression. A reasonable person does not have to rely upon the good nature of a violent individual who isprepared to commit a crime against him or herself. Your passiveness is unreasonable
I to am a CHL holder in Texas and I teach a basic drawing from concealment class to CHL holders. I think you may have missed the use of force continuum portion of your CHL class. Not every situation that you may find yourself in is one in which a gun needs to be drawn. In the vast majority of of situations one can just walk away or use some type of chemical deterrent. Most people do not fair well in a stand up fight against some violent criminal, think the elderly, most average build women and most men. What I'm trying to say is that you missed the part where your instructor presented many options to dealing with a violent encounter before a gun is drawn. It makes me wonder if you really possess a CHL from Texas. Where did you take the training from to receive the CHL?
In my instruction to CHL holders I let them know that they don't have the right to go to places they would have normally avoided without the gun, now that they carry.
I understand your stance against vigilantes, however I think you have your terms confused and many here have tried to correct you to no avail. Truthfully I think you and many others would be better served if you chose NOT to hold a CHL. Whereas vigilanteism is dangerous your passive stance about violent encounters is on the opposite end of that spectrum and is equally dangerous. I would want someone that was a lawful CHL holder to intervene on behalf of my loved ones if a violent crime was occurring in their presence or worse having it directed at them. BTW having worked for a sheriffs department I am not quite so enamored with the training or proficiency in firearms of many law enforcement officers.
Again this isn't meant as a slam but I would seriously re-evaluate your position of holding a CHL. There is clearly a difference between what you term vigilantes and your position, which amounts to armed-nonviolent-passive resistance. Keep guns in the house if you must but I would rethink that as well. I think the best advice I could give you if you plan to continue to carry a firearm for personal protection, (which persons we don't know), is to take a class on combat mindset. The latter is something lacking in most CHL instruction and should be sought out privately. I believe Sigarms Academy offers a class called the Bulletproof Mindset for civilian CHL holders and leo's/military. At the very least you can decide if you want to carry or not and have it be an informed decision. Until then I wouldn't carry. I think your stated passivity makes you too dangerous to yourself and others. Again not a slam. We all do our civic duty in various ways. Trust me you are not the first, and not the last CHL holder I've recommended this to. It's kind of like this, many students know that I was in the Army and ask if they should join. I tell them that there are people suited for military service and those that are not. Sometimes those who are unsuited adapt and even excell, however the vast majority of people unsuited for military service do their country a greater service by NOT joining.
Good Luck!
Best,
Dave
Firefox . . .
Firefox,
That is about as amoral and cowardly a statement as I have ever read. Every jurisdiction permits the use of force (firearms or any other type) to defend innocents – not only yourself – from immediate and grave danger. So, too, do all major religions and philosophies.
You have asked us to “think about” many things in your posts to this thread. Well, you need to ponder this: You see a 65-year-old woman being mugged and assaulted. You judge that you are not in any peril, but the victim will – at the very best – be badly injured. By your words quoted above, you do not interfere to save this woman. That is abhorrent, it violates all normative standards common in Western civilization, and it suggests a lack of values and ethics that make any other opinions you state non-credible.
I have been a participant on TFL, THR and S’ville for many years. Further, I have been part of the firearms community for almost 60 years (my father was an FBI Special Agent, so I grew up with firearms). My experiences suggest that lawful firearms users are among our society’s most prudent and judicious citizens, not at all the “cowboys” your posts suggest (no offense intended to cowboys, by the way).
It seems to me that you would do well to spend some time listening, analyzing and learning, rather than pontificating.
”That's exactly my point, your weapon is for SELF-defense. Not mine or anyone else's.”
Firefox,
That is about as amoral and cowardly a statement as I have ever read. Every jurisdiction permits the use of force (firearms or any other type) to defend innocents – not only yourself – from immediate and grave danger. So, too, do all major religions and philosophies.
You have asked us to “think about” many things in your posts to this thread. Well, you need to ponder this: You see a 65-year-old woman being mugged and assaulted. You judge that you are not in any peril, but the victim will – at the very best – be badly injured. By your words quoted above, you do not interfere to save this woman. That is abhorrent, it violates all normative standards common in Western civilization, and it suggests a lack of values and ethics that make any other opinions you state non-credible.
I have been a participant on TFL, THR and S’ville for many years. Further, I have been part of the firearms community for almost 60 years (my father was an FBI Special Agent, so I grew up with firearms). My experiences suggest that lawful firearms users are among our society’s most prudent and judicious citizens, not at all the “cowboys” your posts suggest (no offense intended to cowboys, by the way).
It seems to me that you would do well to spend some time listening, analyzing and learning, rather than pontificating.