Originally Posted by
PaulG
The points mentioned against my argument (the ones I buy into at least) all have to do with the risk to me. The amount of risk I accept is up to me.
I can't agree that I would be making matters worse and I don't buy into the rubbernecking example.
If I get to the shooter before the cops arrive, I am the only line of defense at that point (unless, hopefully, other armed citizens are around). Yeah, I know . . . they could pose a risk to me too.
If the cops get there first, I will stop where I am, leave the gun holstered and they can handle it.
If the cops arrive while I am firing at the bad guy, well. . . .I'll take that risk.
As far as providing the shooter with a weapon and a body for cover, he won't even know I'm armed until I have assessed the situation and made the determination that I have a good chance to take him out.
I guess my point was that the article seems to assume that anyone not originally at the scene of the shooting who goes there trying to help is trying to be Captain America. That is pure BS.
The bottom line for me is that things could go very, very well or very, very badly no matter what we do. I’ll err on the side of trying to do something to help.