August 4th, 2010 09:26 PM
You can call me all the names you want, as I don't much care. I've probably been called worse.
Unless you are affecting me and mine, I seriously doubt that I will intervene with a firearm. You can play the "what if it was" game all night, I don't much care. I won't ask for someone to step in and assume responsibiliries for myself or a loved one, that I won't assume.
August 4th, 2010 09:37 PM
I refuse to live my life in fear as well but where is the line drawn? I will always have a hard time not providing help or aid to someone in need. I joined the local Vol. Fire Dept. at the age of 17 for a reason. I enjoy helping those in need and I hope that need to help never gets me into law suit city but I do think more about my decisions. I'm 40 now and have daughter. She is the most important thing in my life and I have no desire to sit in prison because I took action against an armed thug that was not threatening my life.
Originally Posted by OldVet
As I stated, it is a very thin line. When to act, how to act and do you act?
There are way too many variables that can or cannot happen. At times it makes me even question if I should carry a firearm. I do know that bad things DO happen to good people that do step in.
I'm not going to stop carrying and I hope the day never comes I must place myself into a situation where things go bad but if it does ever happen I doubt I will give a lot thought to what? Sued? Arrested? etc. I will react to what is going on and nothing more. If bad follows from my actions, so be it.
August 4th, 2010 09:44 PM
An interesting thread , to be sure.
A variety of opinions, somewhat based on the perception of each of the variety of risks involved in intervention in various types of situations. Morals, risk, values, honor, jeopardy, duty and more, each interpreted by each individual usually based on the combination of factors that make up their life. Unfortunately the consequences of a decision usually lie after the conclusion of the chosen action rather rather than prior to its implemetation.
Personally, I may not agree with your decision, but I do not judge it and I expect the same in return. Beyond explainations of how and why, etc, to some degree as enlightenment for the uninitiated of the various factors involved, any further interaction usually only results in wet shoes for all parties involved.
I will ride my horse, you ride yours. I may choose to gallop and you choose to walk. Beyond a brief discussion of the benefits and hazards of each action and the techniques involved, further is just self righteous wind regardless of which direction it initiates from.
I do not like to be told what I should do and for that reason I try not to tell other people what they should do.
August 4th, 2010 09:45 PM
I believe that I'm in your camp for a number of reasons.
Originally Posted by BikerRN
It's a jungle out there, be very careful.
The last Blood Moon Tetrad for this millennium starts in April 2014 and ends in September 2015...according to NASA.
Certified Glock Armorer
NRA Life Member[/B]
August 4th, 2010 10:02 PM
At heart, I generally agree with the sentiment of this post. The now-standard American trope of "I don't want to get involved" is a shame on our national honor. Fear of litigation should not emasculate the instinct to protect and defend those in harm's way. Know yourself, know your skills, know the law and act accordingly.
"It may seem difficult at first, but everything is difficult at first."
August 4th, 2010 10:33 PM
Now, with my comments about helping out, I should add if it's some tweaker getting a beating, I'd be much less inclined to help than if it was an elderly woman getting assaulted. I wouldn't just go guns blazin' because something looks off either. But I doubt very highly that if any of us were out on a walk, for example, and came upon a teenage girl being assaulted by a couple dirtbags we'd just call 911 and watch to be a "good witness".
Proven combat techniques may not be flashy and may require a bit more physical effort on the part of the shooter. Further, they may not win competition matches, but they will help ensure your survival in a shooting or gunfight on the street. ~Paul Howe
August 4th, 2010 11:56 PM
This is exactly how I feel. I have always thought I'd just have to make that decision based on the situation. I don't have a lot of sympathy for those that PUT themselves in bad situations, or allow themselves to get into situations. But if it were a purely innocent defenseless person, facing grave bodily harm, out of no act of their own, I think I'd be forced to act. Maybe with a cell phone, maybe with more if the situation required it. It also depends on whether I had other people such as family members to worry about close by.
Originally Posted by jonconsiglio
August 5th, 2010 12:02 AM
" But I doubt very highly that if any of us were out on a walk, for example, and came upon a teenage girl being assaulted by a couple dirtbags we'd just call 911 and watch to be a "good witness"."
Actually, that's exactly the position many have taken in this thread.
It's not my job to tell another the right way to live their life. When we read a story in newspaper about a savage criminal, and we talk about what a terrible person that individual is, judging that savage is okay, we can all agree on that.
So judging the actions of others is both human nature, and to be expected.
Judge me a fool for risking money or safety to help a stranger. I won't use the language here to describe how I judge those that run away, hide, and take videos.
What a pathetic comment on the nature of the individual who won't help those who can't help themselves.
August 5th, 2010 12:07 AM
Some people feel compelled to "do the right thing".
Others could care less.
That's the way it's always been and that's the way it will always be.
The only thing that has changed are the percentages of "do" or "dont".
I would rather stand against the cannons of the wicked than against the prayers of the righteous.
AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
August 5th, 2010 12:07 AM
"But if it were a purely innocent defenseless person, facing grave bodily harm, out of no act of their own, I think I'd be forced to act. Maybe with a cell phone, maybe with more if the situation required it."
No you didn't say you might be forced to act with a cell phone. How could an innocent person being facing grave harm merit a cell call response? How does that even get into the equation?
Make sure it's after 7pm, so you get free nights and weekend minutes.
Do you all know why we have a right to carry? The 2nd. We can agree we, adult citizens in good standing, are the militia. We, the militia, are granted the Constitutional right to be armed, to protect the security of a free state. From what? From tyranny. From enemies both outside, and within. And tyranny is not restricted to tyranny from government. Tyranny comes in the form of aggressors in all forms. That includes the thug in the convenience store, and the hoodlum beating up on a stranger at a bus stop. You're all so pleased to have the 2A right to carry protected by the Constitution, but hide from the responsibility required of you in the 2nd Amendment. By that measure, which is clear and indisputable, your right to carry is not protected, due to your deficiency in meeting the stipulations of 2A.
Last edited by carguy2244; August 5th, 2010 at 01:11 AM.
August 5th, 2010 01:40 AM
But does not that stranger at the bus stop have the same right to seek safety prior to the act that I did?
Tyranny comes in the form of aggressors in all forms. That includes the thug in the convenience store, and the hoodlum beating up on a stranger at a bus stop.
If that stranger was foolish enough to not be concerned who am I to assume the mantle of protection for him? It was his responsibility, and he ignored it, thus he should pay the price for doing so. Sometimes the price is high, sometimes it's not.
I watched on interesting television show on ABC the other night titled, "What Would You Do?" If anyone saw the scene where the teenagers were beating the transient with a bat, think how that would've gone if someone with a gun had intervened. All the requirements for the use of deadly force were there, Ability, Opportunity, and Jeopardy. Now try and extricate yourself from that predicament.
As I grow older, and see the folly of helping others, I am less inclined to involve myself in their situations.
August 5th, 2010 02:20 AM
First let me state that this post isnít directed at any one person in particular and that I am speaking in very broad and general terms.
One of the most common needs that people have is the need to feel important. We want to know that people respect us. I believe that a good number of people that carry concealed handguns get their feelings of being important from the fact that they are carrying a hand gun. I also believe that there are people participating in this forum that strap up every day and pray to God that today is the day they become the next Jeanne Assam. I also believe that some of them justify this fantasy to themselves by buying into the idea that weíre somehow morally obligated to intervene on anotherís behalf just because weíre armed.
If the police are under no obligation to protect individuals I certainly am not.
If I take on bad guys and I get injured or killed my family doesn't get a state pension or a worker's comp settlement to pay my bills. I donít have the resources of the city behind me to help W/ my legal expenses should I get sued.
Iím sorry. Maybe thereís something lacking in my character Maybe Iím a wolf But I donít feel any moral obligation to risk myself on your behalf and Iím most likely not going to.
August 5th, 2010 02:42 AM
I liked this part:
Originally Posted by MattInFla
"Rather I would seek cover and carefully evaluate the totality of the circumstance. When I was convinced I knew what is really going on I would respond with the minimum amount of force necessary whether that required drawing my cell phone or my pistol. If all we have is a pistol we have severely limited options. I carry three pistols, oc, cell phone, and a flashlight, and I am a PPCT Defensive Tactics Instructor. I am willing and trained to respond with the appropriate level of force even if that is “only” a command voice. I understand the force continuum and know what the appropriate level force is in a given situation. Ignorance of such critical parameters can have horrific consequences.
Those who think the mere display of a weapon will stop hostilities are naÔve in the extreme. The same people we will be confronting know what an appropriate level of force is and when we make outlandish or unjustified threats we’ll show our true colors. These people can tell when we’re serious and we will quickly find ourselves disarmed and in real trouble."
IMO, most people on here dont seem to realize that the moment they draw their gun...ALL dynamics in the situation change. Bystanders may react, may give you away. Plainclothes cops may be there and see only part of the equation. YOU may not understand the actual situation (like the scenario where the father drags the misbehaving teen into his car), there may be unseen accomplices, etc.
For me to get involved with my gun, there still must be clear understanding of situation, ID of target(s), and minimal risk to bystanders including backdrop. Quick draw/shoot is not a likely situation I will ever be in. If so, since I dont have the CQB skills (yet) or believe that I can outdraw someone with their gun already pointed at me...or the attitude that I'd rather die than give up my purse just to be 'right,' I will likely take my chances without drawing.
I've handled most situations in life (and there have been many over 50 yrs) without a gun and I plan to continue to do so. My gun is to protect me and that is what I practice. If there are clear situations where I can help, I will. I have always been someone who responded to accidents, calls for help, did first aid, etc. I have the training and I use it.
I think people should act according to their ethics and their level of training. And realize that no matter what, you may still lose your house.
Fortune favors the bold.
Freedom doesn't mean safe, it means free.
The thing about "defense" is that it has practically nothing to do with guns. (As passed on by CCW9MM)
August 5th, 2010 02:52 AM
Originally Posted by BikerRN
Originally Posted by retsupt99
This is pretty much where I'm at...my first responsibility is to my family...
Originally Posted by Treo
Everyone else has the same ability as I do to protect themselves. They choose not to. Now there are those who cannot defend themselves...children and the elderly. I would tend to lend assistance as appropriate, taking in the totality of circumstances (which I believe limits some of the scenario discussion).
I don't believe BGs (or their "estate") should have the right to sue if they are injured or killed in the commission of a crime....if anything, they should have to pay to replace the ammo and time lost by the citizen when dealing with the police. Change this nationwide and you'll probably see more people taking an active role....BGs should be afraid of the citizenry...not the other way around.
Bottom-feeding lawyers should be hung up by a pitard the moment they file a case on behalf of a potential rocket surgeon who was turning his life around, but needed to rob one more store to go to rocket school to support is 5 kids from 5 different women and to bail his brother out of jail...only to be stopped by a CCW-carrying citizen who didn't want to be killed...who now has to add a 2d mortgage on his or her house to afford a defense lawyer to explain his or her lawful actions...but ended up losing his or her job because he or she was detained by the police (not arrested, just detained).
Yeah...until the laws are changed to put the citizen first and the criminal second, we'll continue to have this problem.
- know the difference
is a fancy name for crappy fighter
You have never lived until you have almost died. For those that have fought for it, life has a special flavor the protected will never know
August 5th, 2010 06:56 AM
Another good part of the article from stoppingpower.net:
"Getting involved" can be something as subtle as stopping and paying attention, it might be a verbal command or question, might be just a matter of where you position yourself. Being armed doesn't mean you have to intervene, but there is a very specific sort of situation where turning your back and ignoring a person suffering an injustice is an act of moral turpitude. In such cases, from an existential standpoint it's harder to not intervene.
I carry a gun to protect myself and the people I love from the Monsters that roam the earth. When I’m away from those that mean everything to me, I carry so I can return to them. Are there circumstances where I would intervene to help a stranger? Yes, but such intervention would be on my terms at my pace. I am not going to jump into a situation with gun drawn.
Also, remember the "bystander effect" from Psych 101. You know, where a person stands on a streetcorner looking up, and pretty soon there's a crowd standing around doing the same thing? Disinhibition is part of the scale of normative behaviors; people take their cues on how to act from watching other people. When one person steps forward and yells, "Hey, you! Stop that!" he or she encourages others to do likewise. To "en-courage," to give heart and bravery to others.
In the same way, if a man is being viciously mugged by a thug on the street and the people who witness it see you lower your head, try to play invisible and scurry away hoping you won't be noticed, that signals to all others who see you that this is the correct response: pretend it's not happening. Too bad for the victim. Be glad it isn't you. Instead of a crowd rushing to help, we get Cabrini Green again. The actions you make determine the course of reality. Choose wisely.
"It may seem difficult at first, but everything is difficult at first."
Search tags for this page
not my job
Click on a term to search for related topics.
» DefensiveCarry Sponsors