I find this discussion fascinating despite apparently hitting a nerve or two. There are some good points about the two situations I cited, particularly re: the fact that the Texas shooter was confronted when he came out so Willeford didn't enter the premises. However the question was a moral one, ie one of principal, so like other questions of principal the particulars of the situation can vary but the principal remains. Honestly some of the responses seem a bit defensive to me, though I could be reading more into it than there is. I say let us reason together., I'm not infallible but I also frankly don't care if someone is uncomfortable or triggered merely because I raised an honest moral question.
This thread is making me think about some things that should probably have been obvious to me before, but which I hadn't really integrated. Wayne LaPierre famously said "To stop a bad guy with a gun, you need a good guy with a gun". I have said that myself on occasion to anti-gunners, and I dare say Stephen Willeford has been a classic case of a GGWG to most in the 2A community. And what MADE him GOOD is that he acted for the good of others and at the risk of his own life- nobody describes his neighbors as Good Guys Without Guns. Deputy Peterson on the other hand was neither a bad guy with a gun OR a good guy with a gun, since he neither acted against the students nor the gunman but rather acted only with his own self-preservation in mind. He was what I am calling a NEUTRAL guy with a gun (NGWG) in that his presence was literally a non-factor in the outcome, if you discount the unfortunate fact that he also warned several of his fellow responding officers not to intervene as well (advice they apparently took). My friend recently took a CCW course, and was advised by the instructor that he is "not a LEA" and the proper response to an active shooter is "not" to engage the shooter but rather to basically do the same thing he would do if he were not armed. He was advised he should only fire at the mass shooter "IF AND ONLY IF" the BG was "engaging him and his family first", because of course as we all know the shooter always misses the first few shots and you can always tell when the bullets are coming at you, so you'll definitely have enough time to figure that out and bring your undrawn gun to bear. I myself am not a big believer in conventional wisdom, or dogma, and this is no exception. What is apparent to me now is that while a sizeable sub-set of the CCW holding community like Willeford can accurately be described as "a good guy with a gun", in that they are willing to act at least in part for the good of others, there is a big proportion who empirically speaking do not feel any overriding moral duty to assist others in that situation. As far as I can tell nobody here has said that directly, but it seems to me to be the plain meaning of some of these and other responses from CCW holders. No judgments from me, you do you. But if you have a plan of action that is not materially different than Deputy Peterson's, eg take cover, flee, shoot only what is a direct threat to yourself, I think definitionally you are more of a Neutral Guy With A Gun than a GGWAG. Granted you'll take action as a last resort if the gunman happens to corner you in a hallway bathroom, but while the outcome of that would be good it falls more within the realm of luck than intent. Otherwise it seems like your firearm might as well be at home, as your plan is functionally identical to what it would have been had you come unarmed, and like Deputy Peterson you are neither a threat nor a deterrent to potential BG's. I'm not saying that this 3rd category is immoral or bad, but it certainly seems A-moral to me. I was initially tempted to say that this is a form of Swiss Neutrality on a personal level, except that Switzerland would have been assured of annihilation if it had attempted to stop the Nazi's for example. To my way of thinking it is more like that of the pre-Spiderman Peter Parker, who allowed a mugger to run past him without interfering because it wasn't his problem only to find that the criminal was capable of his family because of his inaction. Personally I prefer to follow the example of Willeford, and my intention has been to act accordingly in the impossibly unlikely event such a situation should occasion arise, within the bounds of common sense of course. For example that doesn't mean intervening when a pimp slaps a prostitute on the street, or stopping bar fights. Nor do I have the right to involve other innocents like my wife and child, so were they with me getting them to safety would take precedence. However once I had brought them to safety I would seriously consider returning to the hot zone depending on the totality of circumstances. If there is a perp in an entrenched position, rest assured I will not be assaulting that position solo with my compact 9mm. I am however intrigued by those who say in a blanket way that they will flee a situation where other innocents are being slaughtered around or near them as long as the BG leaves them alone and they aren't themselves in apparent danger. Leaving aside some of the tactical problems with that, eg "If you can see the enemy, he can see (and engage) you", what would that look like in real life? For example, if I'm at the restaurant with 10 of my similarly armed and neutral friends and a BG comes in the back door shooting patrons, do the 10 of us file out the front door and stand around on our 10 cell phones calling 911? Do we file past him while he does his work in the anterior dining room as long as he doesn't look or fire our way? How about if he stops to reload or his gun jams, how would that change the calculation or should we still pass him by since he could still finish reloading or clearing it and turn the gun on me and any action I take might direct his attention away from the other people he is pumping bullets into? What if someone slower, like a handicapped person, is impeding our route- do we push them out of the way to expedite our escape since seconds count in these situations and our primary obligation is to survive to support our families? How about if my friend is hit but come to think of it he's more like an acquaintance- do I leave him, or is there some rule about how long I must have known him in order for him to come under the umbrella of my protection? What about a 3rd cousin, or a step-brother? Come to think of it what if the 10 of us are sitting there and the BG "only" has a knife- the Tueller drill tells us that he can close and stab us in 1.5 seconds if we are within normal handgun range, so does that really change our calculation when the criteria is the ability to return safely to our families and having been sworn in as a LEA? Later standing outside as one of the few survivors, how do we suppose our family members will react when we tell them we ran past all the shooting victims, letting them take some of the bullets that were meant for us, in order to "be there for them"? For that matter what about witnessing a forcible rape or attempted child abduction- it seems like that perp could also have a gun even if I don't see it, so by the same logic shouldn't I clear the area as fast as possible to get out of the range of the weapon he might have? Come to think of it, if I see someone drowning or trapped in a smoking car, I'm neither a lifeguard or an EMT...? On a larger note, what if the government decides to start confiscating our guns- do I really want to jeopardize my livelyhood with an illegal gun charge (or an "accessory to" charge if I don't turn in someone who's illegal guns I know about), or is it better just to turn them in and keep being a good provider?
Edmund Burke supposedly said "All that is necessary for evil to succeed, is for good men to do nothing". It seems to me like once I make the calculation to take a position of a-moral armed neutrality, adhering to that logic is a fairly slippery slope. Personally I am no hero, but I do have a lot of training and experience that would potentially allow me to be a good guy with a gun so right now that is my operating plan. I do of course want to be there for my wife and son, but I also do not want him to grow up in a world where good men do nothing, where CCW holders are no deterrence to evil doers and where the example his father gave him is one of self-service in the face of peril. Again no offense intended to the NGWG here, but I do think the distinction between NGWG and GGWG is real and worth noting. One more thing I will say- if I or one of my loved ones is ever in a venue when a mass shooting breaks out and there is another CCW holder present, I sure hope it's one like Stephen Willeford and not one of the NGWG variety.