CCW "obligations", moral questions

This is a discussion on CCW "obligations", moral questions within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Wow, its been a while... Still rememberd my log on and PW LOL...

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 82
Like Tree24Likes

Thread: CCW "obligations", moral questions

  1. #46
    Member Array dynamo55b's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Watertown NY
    Posts
    26
    Wow, its been a while... Still rememberd my log on and PW LOL
    Zuma Forums --- Youtube Channel Link
    Yamaha Zuma 125 in Black: 164cc w/ forge piston upgrade, Yosh CF pipe, Pirelli GTS23/24 tires, Force Works ECU, SRT 4 hole injector, Race camshaft, and KOSO 28mm TB w/ manifold,

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #47
    VIP Member Array MitchellCT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    I don't post here anymore...Sorry
    Posts
    2,333
    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Crunch View Post
    "Shoot to kill" is an erroneous mind-set. You shoot to stop the threat.
    Respectfully, that's such a load of BS as to be without description.

    The use of deadly force in self defense is a shooting to kill.

    Period. End of story.

    Self Defense is a justification for what would be, in unjustified circumstances, murder.

    You and everyone else may call it what they will to avoid looking directly at the cold hard truth: Putting the front sight on another human being and commencing a proper trigger press is shooting to kill.

    Done with justification, it is self defense.
    Done without justification, it is murder.

    But it is still placing the front sight on target and commencing a proper trigger press.

    The use of linguistic contortions is for people who are either not sure they can bring themselves to kill someone, or for people lacking a proper understanding of what self defense truly is, or those lacking the moral/ethical fortitude to look squarely at the results of a justified use of force deadly force...a dead person.

    It's not pretty.
    It's not politically correct.

    When justifiable, it is not murder...and not subject to civil or criminal sanctions.

    But it is still shooting to kill.

    Calling it anything else diminishes the act, and that’s wrong.

    Life isn't something inherently precious for everyone, because some people are cockroaches and just need to die...

    But you shouldn't sugar coat or other wise use linguistic tricks to cope with the fact that you may have to take someone's life. Either accept it now, or deal with the mental consequences after the fact.
    Guantes, wmhawth, JD and 2 others like this.

  4. #48
    JD
    JD is online now
    Administrator
    Array JD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Central Iowa
    Posts
    19,130
    I am in complete agreement with Mitchell on this.

    "Shooting to Stop" was at the time the "Politically Correct" term for "Shoot to kill"

    If you're not shooting to kill, you're shooting to wound, shooting to wound is bad, shooting to wound indicates to me that "I didn't mean to kill him" which in my mind = man slaughter. You're either using lethal force or you're not, there is rarely a middle road, especially when it comes to using a firearm.

  5. #49
    VIP Member Array MitchellCT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    I don't post here anymore...Sorry
    Posts
    2,333
    Quote Originally Posted by JD View Post
    I am in complete agreement with Mitchell on this.
    We are just going to make sure that get's quoted...for posterity...

  6. #50
    JD
    JD is online now
    Administrator
    Array JD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Central Iowa
    Posts
    19,130
    Quote Originally Posted by MitchellCT View Post
    We are just going to make sure that get's quoted...for posterity...
    I like most, if not all the points you make. Where we sometimes have a disconnect is in how you present them.

  7. #51
    Member Array The Dark's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    FL
    Posts
    146
    Quote Originally Posted by JD View Post
    I am in complete agreement with Mitchell on this.

    "Shooting to Stop" was at the time the "Politically Correct" term for "Shoot to kill"

    If you're not shooting to kill, you're shooting to wound, shooting to wound is bad, shooting to wound indicates to me that "I didn't mean to kill him" which in my mind = man slaughter. You're either using lethal force or you're not, there is rarely a middle road, especially when it comes to using a firearm.
    I think you are playing semantics - shooting to stop is the goal - it does not mean shooting to wound. A kill is one type of a stop, but not the only one. If I must shoot, I shoot for center mass - not to wound, but because it is the most accessible target. If 2 - 3 CM hits stop the threat, then I do not care if it kills it. If it does not stop, I go to whichever failure drill is appropriate and feasible - and if that stops the threat, I am not concerned with the manner in which it does.

    Shooting to stop, in that case, is not shooting to wound - it is acknowledging that if my shots stop the threat (dead or alive), then my need (justification) for self-defense has ended. I want the threat to stop as rapidly as possible and with greatest efficiency - but do not care whether that is accomplished via death or incapacitation.

    A stop (not a wound) is the goal - the kill a potential acceptable co-incident of the action required to stop. If the action stops the threat and then, just for gravy, I put a few more in, then I am now guilty...
    "To predict the behavior of ordinary people in advance, you only have to assume that they will always try to escape a disagreeable situation with the smallest possible expenditure of intelligence." Friedrich Nietzsche

  8. #52
    VIP Member Array Harryball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Lansing Mi
    Posts
    6,942
    Quote Originally Posted by MitchellCT View Post
    Respectfully, that's such a load of BS as to be without description.

    The use of deadly force in self defense is a shooting to kill.

    Period. End of story.

    Self Defense is a justification for what would be, in unjustified circumstances, murder.

    You and everyone else may call it what they will to avoid looking directly at the cold hard truth: Putting the front sight on another human being and commencing a proper trigger press is shooting to kill.

    Done with justification, it is self defense.
    Done without justification, it is murder.

    But it is still placing the front sight on target and commencing a proper trigger press.

    The use of linguistic contortions is for people who are either not sure they can bring themselves to kill someone, or for people lacking a proper understanding of what self defense truly is, or those lacking the moral/ethical fortitude to look squarely at the results of a justified use of force deadly force...a dead person.

    It's not pretty.
    It's not politically correct.

    When justifiable, it is not murder...and not subject to civil or criminal sanctions.

    But it is still shooting to kill.

    Calling it anything else diminishes the act, and that’s wrong.

    Life isn't something inherently precious for everyone, because some people are cockroaches and just need to die...

    But you shouldn't sugar coat or other wise use linguistic tricks to cope with the fact that you may have to take someone's life. Either accept it now, or deal with the mental consequences after the fact.
    Very well put. I think this should be a sticky.
    Don"t let stupid be your skill set....

  9. #53
    Senior Member Array adric22's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Fort Worth, TX
    Posts
    1,146
    I'm going to echo what most have said here.. First if just greatly depends on the situation. Just because I see a person with a gun I am not sure if he is the good guy or bad guy. But if it is very obvious that it is a bad guy and I think I have an excellent chance of prevailing, I'll take the shot. For example, if I'm behind him while he is trying to mow down a crowd of people, I probably have plenty of time to take a good aim right to the back of his head. Hopefully since I carry hollowpoint rounds, the rounds will not end up hurting anyone else.

    But, I hate to say it, I'm not going to foolishly risk my life to save others I don't know. When I say foolishly, I mean take a course of action that is not likely to succeed.

    oddly enough, this is the kind of scenario I find myself most often thinking of for myself. Since I don't really go out at night much, and rarely go anywhere besides the grocery store or the mall, I don't wind up in a lot of places where crime happens. So I've always figured if an incident occurs, it would be one of those situations where a crazy person goes into a restaurant, mall, or store and just starts randomly shooting people.

  10. #54
    VIP Member Array MitchellCT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    I don't post here anymore...Sorry
    Posts
    2,333
    Quote Originally Posted by JD View Post
    I like most, if not all the points you make. Where we sometimes have a disconnect is in how you present them.
    Wait...complex, compound profanity laced with multiple animal/sexual & familial/sexual references is inappropriate?

    You have to be kidding...No, really? You are kidding...

    Right?

  11. #55
    Member Array mdmorgan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    iowa
    Posts
    308
    Quote Originally Posted by The Dark View Post
    I think you are playing semantics - shooting to stop is the goal - it does not mean shooting to wound. A kill is one type of a stop, but not the only one. If I must shoot, I shoot for center mass - not to wound, but because it is the most accessible target. If 2 - 3 CM hits stop the threat, then I do not care if it kills it. If it does not stop, I go to whichever failure drill is appropriate and feasible - and if that stops the threat, I am not concerned with the manner in which it does.

    Shooting to stop, in that case, is not shooting to wound - it is acknowledging that if my shots stop the threat (dead or alive), then my need (justification) for self-defense has ended. I want the threat to stop as rapidly as possible and with greatest efficiency - but do not care whether that is accomplished via death or incapacitation.

    A stop (not a wound) is the goal - the kill a potential acceptable co-incident of the action required to stop. If the action stops the threat and then, just for gravy, I put a few more in, then I am now guilty...
    I do believe that the best way to stop a threat is to deliver non-survivable wound.

  12. #56
    VIP Member
    Array archer51's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    21,090
    Quote Originally Posted by BikerRN View Post
    I have no moral obligation to anyone but myself and my family in a time like this.

    My off duty guns are carried for self preservation, not to stop crimes perpetrated against others. Before you "flame" me let me just tell you I have had long talks with my Agency's lawyers regarding this and their off duty policies. Let's just say that while I may not agree with them I have a higher obligation to my family and making sure they have food to eat and a place to sleep.

    If you are a CCW holder I think the best thing you can do in a Mall Shooting type situation is to flee, if you safely can. Remember, your handgun is a tool of last resort and you don't know all the players. It would suck if you shot a responding "plainclothes" LEO, thinking he was the BG, or a responding LEO shot you thinking that you were the BG.

    Life ain't like the movies and as much as we might want to play Bruce Willis in Diehard it most definately will not be like what you see on the big screen. Now if said "Mall Shooter" was to point his gun at me, or someone I believe to be the "Mall Shooter" I think I could reasonably articulate in court why I took whatever actions I might have taken.

    Don't forget, when it's all said and done you will still have to be able to articulate why you did what you did.

    Biker
    +1 I couldn't agree more with what BikerRN said. Do what you feel you must do, but remember, your life and the well being of your family come first.
    Freedom doesn't come free. It is bought and paid for by the lives and blood of our men and women in uniform.

    USAF Retired
    NRA Life Member

  13. #57
    VIP Member Array MitchellCT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    I don't post here anymore...Sorry
    Posts
    2,333
    Quote Originally Posted by mdmorgan View Post
    I do believe that the best way to stop a threat is to deliver non-survivable wound.
    Um...Leme tall you about "G".

    "G" is a pharmaceutical salesmen for a corporation which isn't in good standing with the FDA...but it is on a first name basis with the DEA/ATF/FBI/IRS-CID.

    One day, G is at a sales conference with prospective customers and a disagreement ensues over something or other...or maybe it was a competitor coming by offering better deals on merchandise...whatever...

    G ends up with a 10mm in the melon and 3 rounds of 9mm in the belly.

    It was a bad meeting. His head wound is entry behind the right ear, exit just to the right of the center-line of the back-center of the head.

    That was about 10 years ago. Recently he was dragged by a car for a block. He really didn't slow down all that much from the impact, and was very upset at the cab driver who dragged him like that.

    Your definition of "non-survivable" may be different than the other guy's...and it's not yours that matters.

  14. #58
    VIP Member Array dukalmighty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    texas
    Posts
    15,173
    I can't run due to an injury,I will get mine to a defendable position and wait ,I haven't seen too many active shooter scenarios where they moved with any tactics,it seems that they just walk and shoot,In Tx it's pretty likely he or they would encounter numerous CHL holders,and I'm gonna get outta the crossfire
    "Outside of the killings, Washington has one of the lowest crime rates in the country,"
    --Mayor Marion Barry, Washington , DC .

  15. #59
    Ex Member Array hamlet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    new york
    Posts
    1,291
    Quote Originally Posted by dynamo55b View Post
    Does any body have any GOOD advice on how to keep family members safe in a mall type environment? Malls have a lot of glass, your not going to be able to creep up on the BG. Suggestions please, for keeping the family safe, moving, what to tell police, and what should a CCW do. Are you morally obligated to remove the threat simply because you have the means? Should you simply protect your own family and those immediately around you? Can they prosecute you for "hunting" the gun men in order to stop them from shooting others in line of fire?
    So many questions....
    Morality is a private affair which can mean many different things to many different people. Hence, it can cause many results - not all of them good.

    Use the laws basic question for what the law is there to prevent: "Would any reasonable person believe my life or someone's else's is immediately threatened by a lethal attack?" And/or "Is my intervention with a weapon the only thing that will stop that attack with flight impossible?"
    And a Last Variation: "Will the result of what I am about to do worsen the situation?"

    In other words, the focus in on objective reality right now - and harm or help given to others, necessity of any lethal action etc. Not on internal moral sense. There's nothing wrong with a moral sense of course, but it's not as reliable as the Law's focus on objectivity of situation. You're taking about human life here - all lives.

  16. #60
    VIP Member Array farronwolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,766
    Quote Originally Posted by JD View Post
    I am in complete agreement with Mitchell on this.

    "Shooting to Stop" was at the time the "Politically Correct" term for "Shoot to kill"
    Although I agree in principle with this, it is the folks in Mitchell's profession that caused the phrases "shoot to stop" or "stopping the threat" to come into play.

    Moreover, if you are truely "shooting to kill", you will not stop if the threat ceases and they are not dead yet, you would continue with the process and make sure that the person which caused you to use deadly force was in fact dead. In some instances that would be a criminal act in itself.

    If you hunt and shoot a deer, hog, bear whatever and they go down and you walk up on the animal and they are not dead what does one do? They finish the job, even though the animal isn't going to get up and run, you either cut the throat, puncture the heart, or put another round in the head to "kill" the animal instead of letting them suffer.

    In a self defense situation if you shoot and the attacker goes down and stops the fight or flees the fight are you going to "shoot to kill" by either walking up and putting two more in the heart and one in the brain or chase the attacker down shooting until they are in fact dead? No.

    Should you use the equipment that is best for you, dependable gun, proven ammunition, and be proficient with it, absolutely. Should your goal be to put the rounds on target accurately and efficiently, yes. If this is done, is there a good chance that the attacker will die, sure. If the attack stops and the BG isn't dead should you continue to shoot to kill, nope.
    10thmtn likes this.
    Just remember that shot placement is much more important with what you carry than how big a bang you get with each trigger pull.
    www.ddchl.com
    Texas CHL Instructor
    Texas Hunter Education Instructor
    NRA Instructor

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Questions " Changed Address"
    By FireAir7215 in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: September 15th, 2009, 12:20 PM
  2. Glock 17 "L" questions
    By MeatPuppet in forum Defensive Carry Guns
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: September 21st, 2008, 02:05 PM
  3. Several "Newbie" questions about AR15 components...
    By Gideon in forum Defensive Rifles & Shotgun Discussion
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: February 13th, 2008, 08:35 PM
  4. Cant questions?How to figure out what "oclock" to carry IWB?
    By Ghettokracker71 in forum Defensive Carry Holsters & Carry Options
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: December 5th, 2007, 07:06 AM
  5. A True Texas Tale: "Bad Guy" "One", "Old Man" "Zero"
    By Rock and Glock in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: March 17th, 2006, 08:50 AM

Search tags for this page

ccw obligation
,
ccw obligations
,

colorado ccw obligations

,

force works zuma

,
moral issues regarding weapon concealment
,

moral obligation in the use of deadly force

,

moral obligation with firearms

,
morality ccw
,
morality of ccw
,
obligation for ccw
,

obligation to ccw

,
what obligations of concealed carry
Click on a term to search for related topics.