Difference in attitude about personal defense

[Mobuck]

It seems there's quite a difference in how members of the various gun forums view their role as CCW licensees in the cruel world. At least a couple of the forums I peruse are adamant about "hiding, calling 911, and only using a firearms as a last resort to save yourself". I agree that this is probably the safest and will cause the least chance of liability issues. BUT how do you or would you live with yourself after "allowing" others to be murdered knowing you had the resource to stop the action?
Is it that some folks are just so self centered that they can intentionally allow others to be hurt or killed simply because they don't feel they should get involved? Is it that many lack confidence in their ability to use their firearm except as a last resort? So often there are references to"trainers" who recommend that people are better off hiding in a hole until the boogey man ferrets them out and they must act or die. Maybe it's the city/rural split in how problems are approached. City folks expect to be able to dial 911 and have any problem solved ASAP. Rural folks are more likely to just handle it and make a call for cleanup.

 

[45_auto]

I believe it's because the relatively few people who have actually been in combat or civilian life-or-death situations and try to post what it's like reacting in all the confusion with no information on what is actually happening are swamped by all the chest-beating, game-playing, non-trained majority of posters.

Monday morning quarterbacking, no different than anything else. Those that can go out and do something about it, those that can't post about what they imagine they would do. Most city folk seem to have a realistic view of the amount of protection they can expect from law enforcement, while rural folk are unpleasantly surprised when something happens and the sheriff doesn't immediately appear.

 

[Dwight55]

I cannot speak for everyone, Mobuck, but as for me, . . . in all honesty, I would be hard pressed to actively engage an active shooter if in fact I did not 100% believe my life was in danger.

You have every right to ask, "Why?"

1) I do not know what that person is engaging, who he is engaging, and why he is engaging. He may be a demented idiot out to set a new record of most confirmed kills in a busy mall, . . . OR, . . . he could be another CCW holder engaging the bad guy, . . . OR, . . . he could be an undercover LEO about to take down a Mexican drug king pin, . . . OR, . . . he could ....................

2) Ohio specifically, and in no uncertain terms, licenses me to CCW on the premise that I will only use it to DEFEND myself or others near me.

3) I actively shoot my weapon plenty enough to know that if I pop a cap on a person, . . . they have very little chance of survival. I have to KNOW that I am correct in what I am about to do.

Yes, . . . all of the above begets hesitation on my part, . . . and hesitation could mean the difference of life and death to another person. Also, what I am about to say may seem very cold, very callous, very self centered, . . . but I am responsible to me, . . . to my family, . . . to my loved ones. I cannot shoulder the responsibility for every person who wanders through the mall or into the local 7-11 during robbery time.

May God bless,
Dwight

 

[Sport45]

My concealed carry license didn't come with a badge or a cape and mask.

I wish I could take credit for that, but I can't as I've read those thoughts here or on THR. It does convey my thoughts on the matter though. The carry permit doesn't make me a masked avenger out to right all the wrongs of the world. My carry weapon is for defense. It's to help get me and mine out of harm's way. If the aggressor brings the fight to me I will take any and all measures available to me. I don't plan to advance on anyone who has, or could have, a deadly weapon. I won't go trying to "clear" my house if I know my family is safe and I won't be trying to clear the local strip mall or movie theatre either.

 

[Viper225]

I was an active reserve Deputy Sheriff for 15 years, and a Police Chief for 2 years.
You will have a problem figuring out what is going on a large percentage of the time if it is not a one on one assault on yourself. I have been on a shots fired call that when we figured out exactly who the players were and what was going on, it was Drug Buyers having a dispute with Drug Sellers. After the fact we (the cops) were of the opinion it would not have been a big loss if everyone involved had been killed during the incident. It would have reduced the Crime Rate in a couple Counties.

I have heard people to include myself make the comment "I would have done this or that if it had been me". A high percentage of the time you have no idea at all what you would do till it is over. If you had the same incident happen to you on Monday, then repeated it again on Tuesday you very well might not react exactly the same way on both days. You might not process what you are seeing and hearing exactly the same both days. See my point, you may not even know what you would have done till it is over in some situations.

The comment about Rural Folks being more inclined to just deal with the problem is very true. I live in a large County in a very rural area with low population density. In the middle of the night IF a Deputy is on duty, he could be 60 miles away by curvey 2 lane road that has Double Yellow Lines on over 50% of it. He is showing up to take a report, and sort out what happened after it is over most of the time. It may not be much better in day time either.

Then you have different personalities who have a CCW. You might be an Armed Sheep, or an Armed Sheep Dog. Guess which one is going to step up to the plate for others more often? My brother and I make a good example of this. We both have a Concealed Carry Weapon Permit. In Defensive Pistol Matches I normally beat him, however he is a way better shot than 90% of the Law Enforcement Officers who you might get to shoot in a Defensive Pistol Match. He is plenty capable of taking care of himself. I would be way more likely to get involved in a situation not involving myself Quicker, than he would.

Being an Armed Citizen you need to be WAY more careful getting involved than a Police Officer. You need to make sure you are in the right before stepping up to the plate. Big difference between 4 Gang Bangers shooting at each other, than someone coming in to a restaurant an opening fire on the crowd, which includes you and your family. The 4 Gang Bangers could be 2 Under Cover Cops and 2 Criminals. You have a much better chance of knowing what is going on at the Restaurant. AND You are justified reacting to the situation. One situation you need to step up to the Plate, and one situation you need to stay out of harms way, and report what happened the best you can when the Police arrive, or not.

Just My Two Cents

Bob

 

[Perturbed Panda]

This can be a very sensitive subject in the CCW community, and the gun owning community in general. I have a background as a LEO and active duty military, so my own view is biased by my experiences and training; as I would wager everyone's view is. My response will be based off of WI state statute 939.48, as that is where I reside. My views are just that, they are not legal advice nor am I telling you what to do in any situation.

Firstly, as some already mentioned, even if you have your CCL you're not entitled to play sheriff. The fact of the matter is you're entitled to to defend yourself against death or great bodily harm, only if you cannot flee. Yes while your right to self defense can be extended to a third party, you better have darn good justification for it. If you currently carry a weapon for self defense, be sure to familiarize yourself with your state's statute entitling you to self defense.

Now to move on to my personal view of the topic. I whole-heartedly stand behind closing to engage a threat. Now this still needs to be done in a reasonable manner, mind you. It would be hard to justify running 3/4 of mile through a mall because someone told you there was a mad man with a gun in shooting up Barnes and Noble. If you cannot personally hear and or see the attack taking place, it's probably best if you got the heck out of dodge.

I understand the need and want to protect your fellow man, but in the end it must be tempered with reason. After all that's the standard which most courts will be judging you by. What a reasonable person would do in your situation. I'm sure if I don't mention this, someone will drag this dead old horse out to beat it a few more times; "I'd rather be judge by twelve, than carried by six." Yes this is true, but it is not applicable in the types of situations presented. I am talking about involving yourself where you shouldn't be doing such.

 

[MLeake]

45_auto, having lived in cities and in the countryside, I think you have it backwards.

I know a lot more city folk who think the police will protect them. Most country folks I know realize police response times (any EMS response times) will be relatively long. Most of my neighbors out in the sticks have firearms, and many carry - though some more for snakes and coyotes than for bad guys.

I suspect most of us out in the sticks are also more likely to have (and know how to use) first aid kits and fire extinguishers, again because of longer EMS response times.

 

[Woody55]

The primary reason I carry is to protect myself and whoever is with me. That's best done from a defensive posture.

I am not completely opposed to taking offensive action for a defensive purpose, but there are complications - many of which have been pointed out above.

So, I guess it depends on the situation - and the threshhold is thinking I correctly understand the situation. Which is harder than might be imagined.

 

[OuTcAsT]

Mobuck wrote:

It seems there's quite a difference in how members of the various gun forums view their role as CCW licensees in the cruel world.

Of course,we are a diverse group. Some have Military or LE training, Some have professional instruction, some have none of the above but, have the mindset that they are responsible for their own defense. As such, there will be diverse reactions by each individual.

how do you or would you live with yourself after "allowing" others to be murdered knowing you had the resource to stop the action?

That depends on your definition of "resource" If you simply mean "because I have a firearm" That is a flimsy resource if you do not have intel about the dynamic of the situation occurring.

If you are inside your home, and an intruder comes in, you have a pretty good idea that there is a clear, and present danger to yourself, or your family. It is relatively easy to spot the "bad guy". However, out in public it is much more difficult, as others have pointed out, to know the actors, as you generally might not have "the rest of the story". At that point you must assess the situation, and determine your best course of action, Finding cover, and concealment and preparing a defense is the first step. The rest will depend greatly on the situation as it unfolds, and your own experience, and training level. Surviving, and being a good witness are paramount.

45_auto wrote:

Most city folk seem to have a realistic view of the amount of protection they can expect from law enforcement, while rural folk are unpleasantly surprised when something happens and the sheriff doesn't immediately appear.

I disagree, As MLeake wrote:

45_auto, having lived in cities and in the countryside, I think you have it backwards.

I know a lot more city folk who think the police will protect them. Most country folks I know realize police response times (any EMS response times) will be relatively long. Most of my neighbors out in the sticks have firearms, and many carry - though some more for snakes and coyotes than for bad guys.

I suspect most of us out in the sticks are also more likely to have (and know how to use) first aid kits and fire extinguishers, again because of longer EMS response times.

This has been my experience as well.

 

[TheNocturnus]

I am no super hero. I have faced the business end of a gun too many times in my life and I carry to ensure the next time that happens I at least have a chance to survive if they decide to pull the trigger.

I would do whatever it took to protect myself or my family.

 

[pax]

At home:

I don't recommend hiding or cowering.

I do strongly recommend setting up a tactical ambush from a secure location, with your family well-protected behind your covering fire.

Also, I also don't recommend abandoning your family members to fend for themselves while you wander around in the dark looking for trouble. Haven't you ever seen a horror movie?

In public:

When you pull and use a gun, you are gambling literally everything you have on getting it right during the event and being legally justified afterward. You are gambling your physical life. You are betting your job, your home, and every penny you have in the bank. At risk is your marriage, your ability to share a bed with the person you love, and your ability to watch your children grow up in person instead of from jail. You place on the table every friendship you’ve ever made, every dollar you’ve ever earned or will earn, and your family’s future happiness. You are risking sleep disturbances, flashbacks, nightmares, impotence, anorexia, alcoholism, drug reliance, and a long and bitter lifetime of regret if you get it wrong. That is the gamble you take when you use a firearm against another human being.

And all of that pales alongside the horrible, awful risk of killing an innocent person, and having to live with that for the rest of your life.

To take a gamble that big, it’s a good idea to be overwhelmingly certain there’s no other way out.

Is the life of a stranger worth a gamble that size? Depending on your personal morals, maybe he is. But never ever ever in an ambiguous situation, especially when you didn’t see the prelude and don’t know the players.

To me, the only thing worse than "allowing" a stranger to be killed, would be for me to kill an innocent person. I will risk the former to avoid the latter.

Bottom line:

If the idea of standing by without acting bothers you, GET MORE TRAINING. Learn what you can really do, and what you can't. Be realistic about your abilities and equally realistic about your limitations. I'm not impressed by online chest thumping because I've seen what untrained people (can't) do on the range or under pressure.

I'm impressed with self-discipline and honesty, such as that displayed by a man who lines up to take a shot he realizes he cannot safely take, and holds fire. That's impressive. Would I rather see him take that scumbag down? You betcha! If you want to be that guy, able to accurately judge your abilities under extreme stress, able to make smart split-second decisions, and able to actually take a difficult shot when you need to ... get training.

Confidence is good.

Misplaced confidence is a killer.

pax

 

[Nanuk]

Mobuck,

That may be but we all come from different backgrounds and have different attitudes. Me, I am a career LEO, with time as a US Army MP thrown in. I am also a competitive shooter, and yes I am a gamer too. I live in the stick's now too, having been a big city cop there is no draw for me to the city lights.

In my retirement years my ROI has changed, an assault on my or mine and/or a murder being committed in front of me. It's one of those things that you know what you have when you see it. No I am not getting involved in a drug war, but I will not stand by and watch some snot nosed brat slaughter people.

Ability - Mindset - Tools for the job.

Carry a real gun. I was about to start carrying just a snubby and 911 happened. Now I carry a Glock 24/7, If I may get in a fight I want the best tool for the job.

 

[Ben Towe]

Every circumstance is different and should be handled differently. If some dude rolls up in the mall (or wherever) and starts shooting random people, it's a pretty safe bet he's the bad guy. But that's only one exceedingly rare scenario among thousands of other more likely ones. You may have to make snap decisions in the unfortunate event that you're ever caught up in a deadly force situation, but the mindset that going in guns blazing is always the right call is immature and dangerous.

 

[sfmedic]

i'm going to jump in with a simple observation. Its pretty easy saying if x happens then I am going to do y. If you have never pulled that trigger on another human being you really dont know - period.

We all think that we could make that well thought out decision weighing the law versus exposure to liability. We all would like to think that your inner Clint Eastwood would take over and everything will be done with speed, precision, and a remarkable calmness.

and sure after the police let you go home that night Im sure everyone hopes they will sleep well and go to work the next morning knowing you did the right thing and the perp was deserving of his fate.

But my guess is that 99.99% of people here dont believe that for a second

If your well trained your training is going to kick in and your adrenaline is going to dump into your system and your going to go on auto pilot. All your fine motor skills are going to be in the next county. its all going to be gross motor skills and narrowed focus. If you have trained to the point of muscle memory your in essence going to be along for the ride.

Any post that says "this is how im going to act" or says "I would not have done it that way" is probably wishful thinking.

As to the op s point I dont think any state's DA would press charges if someone stopped an armed robbery in progress or stopped someone in the act of trying to kill another but dont tell me that your subsequent actions are going to be well thought out.

All great plans last until first contact

 

[PH/CIB]

While I would not recommend getting involved in a firefight where you did not know the circumstances, such as the examples already given of two rival drug gangs in a shootout or undercover law enforcement officers in a shootout with bad guys,,,there are other situations where I would definitely engage.

I suppose since it is not sensational or newsworthy to some, that you do not hear too much where a law abiding concealed carry citizen stops a gunman from committing mass murder…And I have always thought that a law abiding citizen or citizens with concealed carry permits and legally carrying deadly force and who acted, could have POSSIBLY stopped every mass murder shooting we have had in recent years.

If you are sitting in a restaurant or movie theater or shopping mall or school classroom (Yes I know you cannot carry there which is the problem) and you see a gunman come in with a rifle or handgun or shotgun and start murdering innocents, I would say engage, this can be hazardous with innocents trampling each other scrambling for the exits, and even though you engage, the gunman might be killed or wounded or run off and therefore stop the murdering, there is also the chance he will return fire endangering you and everyone around you, however if he is already slaughtering those around him which is the greater risk to engage or not engage? You could also be killed by another citizen or law enforcement who did not know you were the good guy. But life is full of risks and these are unknowns as opposed to the killer murdering more people with no one trying to stop him.

If I remember correctly in this last tragedy, there were six adults killed, all Women, all Unarmed, all Heroes, who tried to protect the Children and stop the gunman.

If I as an Armed Man do not have the Incredible Courage of an Unarmed Woman,,,then what has the World come to?

 

[wayneinFL]

Is it that some folks are just so self centered that they can intentionally allow others to be hurt or killed simply because they don't feel they should get involved? Is it that many lack confidence in their ability to use their firearm except as a last resort? So often there are references to"trainers" who recommend that people are better off hiding in a hole until the boogey man ferrets them out and they must act or die.

IMO, a lot of this is not that people are self centered. It's vicarious liability. Instructors tell people to stand back and be a good witness, because they don't want to train a George Zimmerman and be held liable.

 

[Tinner666]

Somebody just standing in the mall and shooting people? I'm taking the shot(s).
Somebody shooting up a school? Ditto

Somebody shooting at an LEO? I'm taking the shot. Been there, done that.

Two guys shooting at each other in the street? Witness first. One turning to shoot the witness, me? I'm taking the shot from the cover I'll already be behind.

Somebody shooting the shop next to mine and I know the owners? I'm taking the shot after one call to drop it.
The on-scene circumstances will help me make my decision. You can't take part in these situations without fully understanding what's going on.

 

[Uncle Billy]

Kathy Jackson has it 100%.

 

[Steel Talon]

FWIW...

My #1 rule in any dangerous situation is simple. My loyalty,and attention is to my family and those in my charge that are present at the time of action.

I will "seek cover, create a defensiable position /identify escape route and exit." I will not abandon them to bring the fight to the "bad guy" Unless the "bad guy" is coming my way. Then I will do what I can to draw his fire away from those behind me bring the fued to him, and kill him as quickly as I can. GOD willing.

If rule #1 isn't needed . Then I have no problems inserting myself into the action if I'm in the GROOUND ZERO area.

The quickest way to drop a "bad Guy" is blindsiding him when his attention is focused on something/someone else.....

 

[Frank Ettin]

It seems there's quite a difference in how members of the various gun forums view their role as CCW licensees in the cruel world. At least a couple of the forums I peruse are adamant about "hiding, calling 911, and only using a firearms as a last resort to save yourself". ....Is it that some folks are just so self centered that they can intentionally allow others to be hurt or killed simply because they don't feel they should get involved?...

You're being far too simplistic. There are multiple factors in multiple situations.

• A Suspected Intruder in Your Home
  
  
  • This has been extensively discussed on this board, including here, here, here, here, and here.
    
    
  • Some folks will want to go looking for the suspected intruder, and some will want to arm themselves, get their family to a defensible place of relative safety and call the police.
    
    
  • The generally recommended course the latter, unless it's absolutely necessary, for example to round up family members or guest to move them to safety.
    
    
  • The reason is that going looking puts one at a significant tactical disadvantage. This is discussed more fully in the threads I've linked to. So if one sees his mission as primarily protecting his family and guests, that mission is best served by gathering them together and defending in a place of relative safety while calling and waiting for the police.
    
    
  • It might be necessary, as mentioned, to go looking, but that doesn't change the fact that doing so put one at a significant disadvantage. As pax put it here:

    One thing that always fascinates me about this stuff is that those who have a higher level of training have much more robust understanding of how to do it safely... and also of how & when not to do it.

    .
  
  
• Third Party Defense
  
  
  • This has also been discussed at length on this board, including here, here, here, and here.
    
    
  • You may be legally justified in using lethal force in defense of others, but in doing so, you step into the shoes of the person you are defending. If that person would have been justified to use lethal force to defend himself, you would be justified in using lethal force in his defense. But if not, your act of violence would be a criminal act subjecting you to prosecution, conviction and jail.
    
    
  • So if you are considering using force in defense of someone, are you sure you know what happened? Are you sure you know who the original aggressor was? Are you sure that the person you intend to help is the innocent good guy? If you think you know, but are wrong, you are risking jail and your family's future.
    
    
  • And if you think you know, but are wrong, you will be shooting the innocent good guy.
  
  
• The Rampage in a Crowd
  
  
  • We've had a few discussions on that topic as well, including here, here, here, here, and here.
    
    
  • How you might be able to effectively deal with such a situation will depend on exactly what is happening and how, what tools you have available and what your skill level is.
    
    
  • A confined area crowded with panicking people presents a difficult situation for even a very well trained and skilled person. Michael Bane in a recent article described the results of modeling the Aurora Theater incident. In the Gabrielle Giffords, bystanders were able to physically subdue the gunman.
    
    
  • The point for the armed private citizen would be to exercise good judgment so as to not do more harm than good.

...Instructors tell people to stand back and be a good witness, because they don't want to ...held liable...

Do you have any actual evidence to support that preposterous conjecture?

In fact, in the classes I've taken the possibility of needing to go looking, that it might be necessary, and how to go about it if necessary, was always acknowledged and discussed. A simulator exercise during my most recent class at Gunsite was premised upon a family member in imminent jeopardy and requiring immediate rescue.

The point is to distinguish between circumstance in which immediate action is necessary and circumstances in which waiting is better calculated to produce a good result.