Why Carry????????

threegun said:
Just an update. The goodguy drew and positioned himself in a defensive posture but then tucked the gun back in his waistband.
Click to expand...
Actually, there are several accounts of what "really" happened. They all differ. The bottom line is that even the police aren't sure if the guy had even drawn his weapon when he confronted the kid. Here's three examples of what I mean:
Seattle Times November 29, 2005:
McKown's parents said last week that witnesses reported he drew his pistol against the shooter, but police said they had not confirmed that account. In a television interview, McKown recalled saying, " 'Hey, put the weapon down — I think I said, 'Son' — I was going with the other hand to [my] jacket, and he obviously was faster on the draw than I was."
Click to expand...
The News Tribune Feb. 22, 2006:
Tacoma police say it’s unclear what happened. McKown had a gun but it was never fired, investigators said. They are unsure whether it was drawn. The family bases its belief on what they know of McKown and what they heard some police officers saying.

McKown, 38, was shot at least two times in the left side from a distance of 20 feet, severing his bowel and spinal cord, Schuman said. The exit wound in his lower right back is as big as a softball. He also was shot in the right elbow.

McKown, an assistant manager at Excalibur Cutlery and Gifts in the mall, was on his way to make a deposit when he ran into the gunman, who was walking along the concourse, firing a semi-automatic rifle.
Click to expand...
Gun Week Magazine, 12-10-2005:
McKown, 38, of Tacoma, was the last person shot by the gunman. Licensed to carry, McKown is an assistant manager at the Excalibur Cutlery and Gifts store in the mall. He confronted the gunman and briefly drew his own pistol, but told reporters that he returned the gun to his belt and instead verbally challenged the suspect. He said he told the gunman that he ought to put the rifle down. That’s when the suspect swung the gun around and shot him several times. The wounds apparently have left him partially paralyzed, though McKown has told reporters he expects to walk again. He has some feeling in one leg.
Click to expand...
From these, and other accounts, I deduced the following:

1. McKown never fired his gun.
2. McKown attempted to verbally argue with a madman already holding a superior weapon and already engaged in shooting the place (and people) up.
3. McKown hesitated.
4. McKown was not willing to engage in force.
5. McKown didn't have the mentality needed to survive.
6. McKown's lucky to be alive.
7. McKown is a hero, in that he tried to save others, but he is just another untrained guy who lucked out.

It comes down to 1) training. McKown didn't have any. And 2) experience, something else he didn't have.

We can all get training. Whether it be professional training or solitary "by the book" training. What we can't get is the experience. That won't happen until it happens. I have seen the biggest, meanest, baddest, most trained people freeze, we confronted with the "moment of truth." All this means is that until you face the reaper, you simply won't know what you will do. So you train, to the best of your ability for that, however unlikely, event.

For those of us that have been through that looking glass and out the other side, we now have that experience. Even though each and every situation will be different, we can infer from prior experience to know pretty much how we will act or react.
 
Jibjab, I didn't say it would be ok...

Just don't expect a tickertape parade if you shoot
a little girl eating an ice cream. Her parents won't care if you just shot
Osama, you're gonna get sued!

Every bullet has a lawyer attached: The "warning shot" in the air,
the bullet that goes through a window, the bullet that goes right
through the bad guy into the bystander, even the bullet that takes
down the bad guy.

I see a lot of posters who seem to be hoping for an
opportunity to be the "hero".

I plan to survive.

My skin, and my family assets are worth a lot more to me than
20 strangers at the mall.

Let's see some laws which legally protect a "hero" in that situation, and
maybe we won't see the next hero be frozen with fear of the legal aftermath.

EC
 
It seems to me that it breaks down into three, not two, groups. It isn't those who will shoot and those who won't. It's those who will shoot (people who've been there, done that), those who might shoot (those who have made the mental decision, if not the physical one, to shoot but haven't been tested yet), and those who definitely won't shoot (for various reasons).

Those who might shoot can (must) get training to improve their odds of winning a close encounter of the worst kind. I believe lots of people who carry have the capacity to pull the trigger if need be, but would either hesitate or not shoot because somewhere in the back of their minds they question whether they've trained themselves sufficiently. The reality of the situation, rather than the unreality of the typical shooting range, makes them question themselves. In other words, the decision to pull the trigger isn't as much a problem for them as feeling confident about their abilities. The more realistic the training, the more likely they are to perform under pressure (this approach is basically the one the military uses). You won't really know how you'll react if a bad situation occurs, but at least you have a stronger possibility of properly using a gun in self-defense.

Those who definitely won't shoot but still own a gun for self-defense (as opposed to target practice or other entertainment purposes) need to be much more honest with themselves. If you allow extraneous factors--the BG is a "kid," is mentally disturbed, etc.--to outweigh the crucial factors--a person or persons are posing an immediate threat of sexual assault, serious bodily injury, or death against you or others--you should not own a gun for self-defense.

NOTE ADDED: My ex-wife was in the third group. She wanted a shotgun for self-defense for those times when I went on deployment. She was actually afraid of the shotgun and fired it only three or four times, but for some reason she slept better at night knowing it was there. I never could figure out how she convinced herself that having a shotgun she wouldn't use somehow made her safer. Maybe I'm just too pragmatic.
 
BWOp's you are a patient person, thanks.

EC, Darwinian evolutionist would be proud of your statement ; quote
I plan to survive.

My skin, and my family assets are worth a lot more to me than
20 strangers at the mall.

Something tells me, your not the guy I would want to be stuck in a fox hole with :(
 
That's fine jibjab,

didn't ask, didn't offer.

Neither do I plan to be flinging lead downrange into bystanders,
and expecting casualties to just "suck it up".

I'm NOT a cop, I'm NOT a ninja, I'm NOT GI Joe with the Kung Fu grip.

I have the right to defend myself, I have the LEGAL OBLIGATION
to protect my family. That includes not getting embroiled in defenses
of avoidable SD shootings, or lawsuits by sue-happy bystanders.

If the bystanders in the next mall shooting don't want to get shot,
they should have armed themselves.

Darwinian, yea, whatever.

I don't feel guilty about not being the hero at the last mall shooting when
I wasn't near it, and I won't be guilt tripped about getting my family
out of harms way when I hear gunshots. Running back towards the gunfire?
Tactically and legally foolish, but I won't stop you.

I've had enough trouble come my way, uninvited, without looking
for some "heroic fantasy" to inject myself into.

EC
 
Excuse me EC, I respect your position, I would wager if you were in the mix and armed, with your family in harms way you might post differently ?
 
If my family and I were in the mix, my first priority is their safety,
I get them out of danger if I possibly can.

My second priority is my own. If I get shot to rags, my family does
not hit the insurance lottery. If I get sued, my family gets impoverished
by legal bills.... I doubt I'll see a legal fund established for me.

I've read plenty by Ayoob, and others, and taken CCW classes in Two
states... My understanding of the laws is that shooting in defense of
myself or my family is going to be pretty legally defensible.....
with no guarantees as to outcome.

Defending strangers, or chasing down gunfire, and the legal ground gets shakier.


EC
 
Edison C, If your family was ever going to be on of those 20 strangers in the mall, I would bet that you would trade all your family assets in for the help of a stranger ("hero").

Nobody expects someone to act in a manner that would endanger their own family or strangers, nor is it expected that a civilian seek the source of trouble. What I find hard to swallow is how you can so easily disgard the lives of 20 people that you could have helped. I would have trouble mentally knowing that I could have helped but I didn't and they died as a result. I don't feel like that is being a "wanna be hero" but rather the right thing, the American thing, to do. I certainly would hope that someone helped me and mine if the role was reversed.
 
here is what pertains to me:the indiana constitution........Section 32. The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State.
 
This is a re-hash of a thread that was started a few days after the incident occured. My take is simple, don't play Rambo with your pistol against a guy with a far superior weapon. Your family comes first, if your with your family and you can get out..GET OUT. If your real close and your have an easy shot at the guy, and your confident you can do it, then do it. The story was the CW carrier froze when he seen the guy and saw he was a baby faced teenager. He thought he could talk the guy down and he thought wrong. Some people think that a CW permit somehow makes them a member of law enforcement. IT DOES NOT. Rushing to the area with your "baby Glock" and trying to close in and engage a guy with a rifle is stupid. Not only can you easily get gunned down at 100 yards, but your fire can injury and kill innocent bystanders. Also your gun and gunfire will just confuse responding LE. If you have a clear, close range shot at the the guy's head and you want to take it, then take it. If the guy is shooting at you and your family, shoot back. Otherwise just because you go to the range and shoot at paper all day does not make you a natural born killer. Do not be critical, and say "I would have done this or that" WHEN YOU NEVER TOOK A LIFE YOURSELF

We are a just a bunch of virgins giving sex advice.
 
Mikeyboy, I'm a recent member and didn't know that this thread was already posted....sorry. I do think it is important to make folks think about this before it happens to them. You have to make up your mind one way or the other if you are willing to use the gun you carry. If your answer is no or I don't know....then don't carry. You have just insured that you won't use it anyway. Those willing to protect themselves should train often, both mentally and tactically, to reduce the chances of freezing up in the face of danger.

I agree with your assesment of what to do. For me the impulse to help is driven purley from the "if the shoe was on the other foot" feeling not any desire to be a hero.
 
Here's my take on it. If the assailant was mowing down innocents with his rifle, then I would take him out, if I was close enough and had a good shot. If he was just waving the thing around and firing it, I would try to make my escape, not worth the legal aftermath. If innocents were getting killed, then I'd take him out.
 
Talk is cheap, guys.

Stop swinging those macho keyboards and try to hear what I'm saying.

If you carry a gun, and you have not done any more training than the
minimum for your carry license, you are hardly any more use to
anybody than a little old lady with a knitting needle.

If you carry a gun and you have little more than a vague idea
of "if something happens I'll SHOOT the bad guy", you are a fool.

Carrying a gun is a serious responsibility, and perhaps it deserves
some serious THOUGHT? So all I'm saying is, think it through, think
through scenarios, and read up on what happens to people who
draw their weapon in self defense. It isn't always pretty .

If you kill a berserker in the mall, WELL GOOD FOR YOU!

If you see some gangbangers beating each other, cross the street to
intervene, fire a warning shot in the air and put a bullet in a kid's spine
100 yards away, don't be surprised at the consequences.

EC
 
If no one is willing to act for the fears you have pointed out (well deserved fears BTW) and your family is hurt or killed as a result what then? I agree that anyone who is going to carry should train as much as possible. I just hope that if something similar goes down with my family in the mix, people with a do nothing mindset aren't the only ones at the scene.


EC, Listen this might be an isolated case but it is my only expierience. I train regularly on drawing, front sight location, and firing. The day I thought I was going to have to shoot a would be robber, I drew, found the front sight, and began to squeeze the trigger. Thankfully this idiot had only a bb gun and I was able to recognize it as such before shooting him. He went on to pull and point this bb gun at my coworker, saying after that he wanted to scare him before trying to pawn it. My point is this highly stressful spur of the moment situation happened to me and I reverted automatically to my training. No hesitation, just smooth reaction. I did get the slow motion feeling despite having a sub 1/2 second draw. I also expieirenced some tunneling of my vision and some loss of hearing. All in the blink of an eye. The most important thing is that I didn't freeze. I believe if you are willing to shoot if forced and you train alot, most people will not freeze but rather react.
 
Lawyers and Good Intentions

Being in a mall or crowded place, that assumes many people are present, both visable and invisable, in the heat of the moment. Even if someone goes on a shooting spree does not relieve you of personal liability. You are an individual acting on your own, not backed by security, law enforcement, likely not officially trained and documented as "saviour". Business and government have the resources and insurance to cover their legal costs (a fortune) to cover greedy lawyers and court costs. Should you shoot and miss / recochett (sp) and hit an innocent by-stander, they will own everything you have in court. In addition, you will spend many days with court proceedings because of your involvement whether absolved or not. You could be a "hero" at that moment, but human nature will drag you ass to court if everything was not picture perfect. Personally, I would not intervine unless myself and/or family were in immidiate danger. Just something to chew on...
 
Dennis2, I completely understand your point however if it was your family in harms way would you want them helped? Thats my problem. I would want the help for mine thus I feel obligated to help if I can without jeopardizing family or other innocents. I will not actively seek tthe source of trouble as that is law enforcments job.
 
The military had the same problem in WW1 or 2 and then in Korea. Something like 0nly 25-50% of the shots were actually aimed fire. Humans are not naturally going to kill another human. Any species for that matter is not generally going to kill their own..sure there are some differences. The military had to divise a way to desensitize people to killing. For one they switched from bullseye targets to silhouettes (human outline). Human looking targets for bayonette training instead of tires or boxing bags. War games with laser training , ect. First person shootem up games have done a lot for dehumanizing/desensitizing kids in killing other kids/people and yes the military is using them too. There is an article on line somewhere that talks of how the military trains soldiers. Desensitizing oneself to kill sounds like a bad thing but in reality it is a needed if you want to be able to kill someone else with a measure of success when under stress.
 
The only question?

New poster folks so please bear with.

I totally agree with EC on this matter.

Even in the event that your family is not immediately in harms way, the legal aftermath can destroy your family and their security as effectively as the BG's bullet.

Each of the innocents in this scenario is responsible for their own security.

What I mean is, none of us (since we have taken no oath, or are paid to serve and protect) has an obligation to protect strangers.

And since those others will in all likelihood not provide a dime to your legal defense, your first priority is to your family.

I'm not saying don't respond.

I'm saying survey the situation first.

Will any of you feel great for reacting after the fam loses the home in the civil suit? What about possible jail time and those legal expenses?

What if you accidentally shoot the little girl? Will all see you as the "hero" then? What about your mental health after you shoot the little girl?

"the idiot that thinks he has something to say
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top