Difference in attitude about personal defense

Status
Not open for further replies.
Viper I really appreciate your comments. I have been in similar situations. I once responded to a shooting of two drug dealers who sold powdered sugar to some people. The buyers objected and we had two dead dealers. I suggested that the case should be handled under workers compensation as getting shot was an occupational hazard when you sell fake dope.

Your comments on response times parallel my experience in Apache County AZ.

The only difference is we don't have paved roads. Many times the Sheriff must respond across 4 wheel drive trails. In my case response time from the sheriffs office is 2 hours and it is 35 miles away.
 
I personally wouldnt engage anyone in a situation where both parties are armed and shooting at each other. No way to know who is who or what is happening.

Every other situation would have to stand on its own merits as I witnessed then and likely I would need to have seen the start of the encounter. Im no hero, no cape etc but I would have a very hard time living with myself if I stood by and watched an innocent be killed or maimed when I could have stopped it. Keeping mind that stopping it may not involve the actual use of lethal force but prepared to do so if forced too.

As far as rural folks being surprised by LEO response times, if they are they must have just moved from the city. I was born raised and live in the hills of Ky 13 miles from the nearest tiny little town. A call to 911 for LEO even to a shooting in progress is about as helpful as a prayer for Wild Bill Hickok to appear.
They will show up. Eventually. In likely about half a hour or so.
:rolleyes:
 
As far as rural folks being surprised by LEO response times, if they are they must have just moved from the city. I was born raised and live in the hills of Ky 13 miles from the nearest tiny little town. A call to 911 for LEO even to a shooting in progress is about as helpful as a prayer for Wild Bill Hickok to appear.
They will show up. Eventually. In likely about half a hour or so.
Click to expand...

Which is why those of us who live the boondocks should call as early as possible in the encounter, if it is reasonably possible under the circumstances. (Hint: it won't always be.)

Even though it rubs against the grain, that early call is even more important for us than it is for the city folks. Why? Because the gun in your hand does not make you immune to incoming fire. If today is your day to get shot, stabbed, or bludgeoned, it would be nice if the kind people who know first aid were already on their way when it happened -- seeing as they have such a distance to travel.

Here's an example of the sort of encounter I'm talking about. http://abcnews.go.com/US/okla-woman...perators-shoot/story?id=15285605#.UM_9BHdMi5U. This woman picked up her shotgun, covered the door, and called the cops. She wanted help to come, but she wasn't relying on them to get there in time -- that's what the guns were for. It took them "too long" to get there (she had to shoot the intruder, so sad...). But if anything had gone wrong with her primary defense plan, if she had been injured and become unable to call once contact was made, she would have been okay because she had help already on its way to her. Smart!

Here's another. Same sort of deal. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/12/09/earlyshow/main5949873.shtml. Listen to the whole thing, beginning to end.

There's no shame in calling for help, if you have time and the circumstances reasonably allow for it.

pax
 
Kathy you are correct if there is time. At the very least we wont have to wait as long for the coroner to get the body out of my home. ;)
 
Most of the time, when we are out and about, my Wife and I are together.

A couple of incidents in the twenty years we have been married, I have dealt with without shooting any one, if I had had to, then I would have done so.

When the threat is against you, or yours, it is easy to act, most loud noises, screams and threats, happening not close to us, very few of these even, I would note, then slide off.

A Glock 19 is a safety net, only to be deployed when required.
 
I confess to being happily in the conceal/wait and defend category. I am going to protect my wife and kids and if there are more with me they get protected also. My idea of protecting them from an active shooter situation is to get them to cover and or preferably away from the area completely. That not being an option to find some place out of site and hopefully somewhat defensible, at the very least out of sight, the shooter is likely looking for targets not intent on searching out every single person in the GAP or whatever store we might be in. An active shooter in many instances is better armed (Rifle shotgun, multiple handguns etc.), more than willing to shoot on sight without having to consider who it might be, likely wearing at least minimal body armor, with lots of ammo to spare, so at the very least I am at a disadvantage from the beginning, and I don't want to play their game, its even assuming that they are the only shooter.
 
Sport of course if its mine. Im a big guy. Even if they rolled me into the yard the buzzards and stuff wouldnt get rid of me before I became aromatic :p;)
 
For me, there certain criteria I want to have met before I get actively involved.

1. I must have a clear understanding of what is happening.
2. I must know who the "players" are.
3. I MUST be able to POSITIVELY ID who is the innocent and who is the aggressor. (Knowing that those roles are not always present during a conflict.)

If I can't figure out what's going on, why, and who the BG is, I'm probably not going to be engaging anyone.

Now, if a guy walks into the church with a shotgun and starts blasting every 3rd person in the aisles, that's clear enough for me! I'll try to stop him, if I have a good opportunity. If not, I'll try to get as many people out of the line of fire as I can. (Assuming I don't just stand there with a dumb look on my face! :eek:)

I won't fault people for simply defending "me and mine." That is a reasonable and safer course of action. I would simply feel awful if I knew I could have helped the victims but didn't (which may or may not be the case, depending on incident specifics).
 
I would simply feel awful if I knew I could have helped the victims but didn't (which may or may not be the case, depending on incident specifics).
Click to expand...

Me too. It's one thing that's driven me to seek good training, and then to turn around and teach others. I never want to be in a position where I could have helped, if only I hadn't been too proud to seek instruction early on. If I'm ever in a fight for my life, I want to be so well-practiced with my lifesaving rescue equipment that I can think about solving the problem, instead of wasting precious mental energy trying to remember how to run the gun. I'm frankly appalled at the number of people who say they'd be willing to jump in, but who aren't willing to do even a minimum level of preparation that would make it more likely that their intervention would be successful. It's ... sad.

Although I beat the drum of preparedness and practice, I'm also aware that stuff happens.

Three years ago, during an LFI class held at the Firearms Academy of Seattle in Washington state, Mas Ayoob brought in a guest lecturer. This honored guest was one of the nicest guys I've met in years -- very soft spoken, very kind, very gentlemanly. I loved getting to know him during the class. He was also a heluva good shot, having put a mass murderer down at a measured 70 yards using a handgun he had literally never fired before. (He was, of course, well-practiced with similar guns, but he had never shot that particular gun until he needed to do so under extreme stress.)

Mas calls it "one of the most remarkable feats of marksmanship in modern times," and it was.

You can hear him tell his story here: http://proarmspodcast.com/2009/09/13/033-the-fairchild-incident-andy-brown/. Definitely worth listening to, if you have the time.

As you listen, pay particular attention to what that man found most difficult after he saved lives that day. It was that, in all of his physical and mental preparation, he had never considered what might happen if he stopped an attacker ... but was too late to save every life. He was undoubtedly and unquestionably a hero, but the lost lives still ate at him.

It's good to be realistic about possibilities. Don't let them paralyze you, but don't engage in unrealistic fantasies either. Learn as much as you can. Then consider your own priorities, count the cost, make your choice.

pax
 
The tax payers spent untold amounts of dollars to train me. The least I can do is continue to help defend the defenseless even if I'm under armed and armored for the job. I would rather die trying to defend someone then live with my inaction or inability to do so.

That's my attitude, many don't like it and think that I'm paranoid for carrying because the chance of something happening while i'm in a position to do something is slim to none. Very true, but if most people were prepared then the chance of someone being there to stop something truly awful from happening would grow exponentially.
 
I guess I'm in the "get to cover" camp. I'm not saying there's no situation where I would intervene to help someone out, but my primary concern is being able to protect my wife and kids. I carry a gun to protect my family - nothing more, nothing less, and I absolutely see using it as a last resort.

If we're out in public and shots are fired I'd grab the kids and run away. If we can't, the plan would be to get between the guns and the kids and hope all the training pays off.
If I was out alone, things might be different, but as those of you with small kids can probably attest, I'm never alone. Trips in to town are far too exciting for them to not ask to come, and time with my kids is too precious for me to say no.

Same goes at home - my first concern in the case of a break in would be to make sure everyone's safe, then call the police (~1/2hr response time for the inept sheriffs deputy, and close to an hour for the state police out here), then I'd probably try to pry the dogs off whatever poor soul decided to ignore the barking and break in anyway.

If someone else was hurt because I was busy protecting my family I wouldn't have to "live with myself"; I'd be living with my children.

I'm certainly aware that lots of you out there feel very differently about your role, but I'm okay with that. So how 'bout I try not to consider you guys "trigger-happy", or "cocksure", and you not consider me "selfish" or "untrained". We all walk our own path.
 
Dwight55 covered it well in post #3.

I've lived in large urban environments and isolated rural areas. My attitude towards self defense hasn't been influenced by my address.

The general rule is "stay out of third party situations."

There are far too many variables that I (or any other CHL holder) do not understand in the vast majority of these cases to justify our application of deadly force. That's not to say that if I were on location during a mass shooting that I wouldn't take action. But it would have to a very obvious case before I'd make the decision to intervene.
 
Caution

Trying to be a hero is usually foolish. That is not to say that one should hide, but that one must exercise caution and good situational awareness. If you have time, I would think the best thing to do would be to assess the situation from cover before engaging. I also believe in engaging only as a last resort.

I CCW because I don't want to be a victim. I had a gun pointed at me in a school incident at the age of 14 (thankfully nobody was shot). Not only do I never want to feel so defenseless again, but I don't want my kids or someone else's to experience that feeling either.
 
Trying to "be the hero" is definitely the riskier option. In a "public altercation" situation, I would be inclined to be a good witness and call LE before getting involved, unless it was abundantly clear that one side was innocent and about to be seriously harmed.

In an "active shooter" scenario (statistically pretty rare), I would take a much more aggressive approach to stopping the attack. Personally, I'm willing to assume a lot of personal risk in that kind of situation...largely based on a personal grudge against active shooters and the desire to not have to see families suffer the pain that I've witnessed from such monsters. In such a situation, I have the advantage of not having small children that depend on me.
 
SFMEDIC...spot on. A world of difference punching holes in paper on the range vs a firefight for your life. Most likely those CCWs who think they will save the day because they have a gun are most likely to get shot by LE or another CCW when they pull out their gun. Simply having a gun does not make you value added.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I was just reading my earlier answer. It almost sounds like I'd go out of my way to join the fray. :eek: i won't.
I'm not much for posting long answers, I left out the prudent and normal thongs like freeze to appraise the situation, get between wife and shooter, taking cover, and all that good stuff, not necessarily in that order. Circumstances would decide all that. :rolleyes:
 
colbad, you have a point. My counter-point would be that those who are unwilling to help also offer no value added.
 
A world of difference punching holes in paper on the range vs a firefight for your life. Most likely those CCWs who think they will save the day because they have a gun are most likely to get shot by LE or another CCW when they pull out their gun. Simply having a gun does not make you value added.
Click to expand...


So for the good guys that's not as sufficient as it would be for a criminal?

I doubt criminals go to classes on SD, but they're just fine doing their deeds.
 
So for the good guys that's not as sufficient as it would be for a criminal?
Click to expand...

Actually, it's not. That's because the criminal gets to choose the time and place of the assault. He chooses circumstances most advantageous to him, and if the situation does not favor his success -- he simply does not act.

Furthermore, the criminal isn't at all concerned with killing innocent bystanders. You might even say that's part of his job description: indiscriminate killing, without thought for who else he might hit besides his intended target(s). He does not care where his bullets go.

The good person gets caught off-guard, ambushed unexpectedly. Unlike the criminal, we won't have time to mentally prepare for the encounter or ramp up our emotions to deal with the situation. We don't get the option of simply not engaging if circumstances are against us (which we know they will be, because the criminal chooses the time and place). Because we know we will be caught off-guard, we must be well-trained enough that our reflexive reactions will help, rather than hurt, our chance of survival. We also don't have the luxury of spraying bullets all over the place, as criminals do; our bullets must hit the bad guy and they must not hit any innocent people.

All of these factors make the problem we must solve considerably more difficult, more complex and more difficult to achieve than the one faced by the criminal.

pax
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top