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; One thing not mentioned so far is what you can do before you go to the mall that would help. Assuming that you cannot keep ...

Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 82
Like Tree24Likes

Thread: CCW "obligations", moral questions

  1. #61
    Senior Member Array CR Williams's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    590
    One thing not mentioned so far is what you can do before you go to the mall that would help. Assuming that you cannot keep everyone together, make sure that everyone has an idea of what to do if this kind of thing or a similar emergency happens; seek nearest cover/exit/concealment, call 911, etc. Also, designate one or more rally points where everyone knows to go to once they've evaded the immediate threat where you can get a head count, cover an organized exit, etc. Besides that, make sure everyone has a way to communicate with everyone else, and that there is a signal/message that can be sent that tells everybody to duck and cover/evade/escape etc.

    A little quiet education in these points could ease your mind and make it easier to evaluate something that comes up.
    My cats support the Second Amendment.

    www.inshadowinlight.com

    "Oh, bother," said Pooh as he rocked another mag into the 556R...

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #62
    JD
    JD is online now
    Administrator
    Array JD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Central Iowa
    Posts
    19,112
    Quote Originally Posted by farronwolf View Post
    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.

    What you're talking about is no longer self defense but murder. My shots are aimed with the intent to kill my attacker thus stopping him. With modern medicine / rapid arrival of EMS to scenes and handguns calibers being what they are...do I expect my assailant to die immediately? No, but that doesn't mean that I'm not in fact trying to kill him with shots to the thoracic triangle and central nervous system either. If he stops before he dies, fine. If he stops and then still dies fine.

    As far as the whole "shoot to stop" = shoot to wound mentality, there are those out there that confuse the two more often that what we here see. Most of us here are on the same page as far as what the desired result is. Locally in Iowa lots of instructors have reported students indicating that they see...or rather were under the impression that shooting to stop was in fact shooting to wound.

    We've come full circle in some areas and no longer remember what started "shoot to stop" and some just don't know what it really means.

  4. #63
    VIP Member Array farronwolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,766
    I agree that we are more on the same page than not, and that the intent isn't to simply wound the attacker in order to put an end to his attack.

    Those who would teach or encourage that behavior need to be weeded from the system.

    BTW, I have noticed on the CSI, NCIS or any other various shows that the handgun always kills the BG instantly. Anyone know where we can all get those guns?
    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

  5. #64
    VIP Member Array Guantes's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Idaho
    Posts
    5,272
    The best example of of proper shooting of criminals in the movies/tv that I have seen is Bruce Willis. He is not cheap with his ammo. Shoot the crap out of them until the threat is stopped.
    "I do what I do." Cpl 'coach' Bowden, "Southern Comfort".

  6. #65
    Ex Member Array hamlet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    new york
    Posts
    1,291
    The law's pretty clear on what you are doing in self-defense in general: attempting to stop an attack using an equal degree of force as the attack itself in order to do accomplish this. In other words, the response has to be commensurate with the attack. So when the attack is lethal you are allowed to use lethal means to stop that attack. Once the attack is done, so are you. Continuing on is beyond the law's allowance.

    That's the best yardstick for anyone's response to any attack: not too little, not too much.

  7. #66
    Distinguished Member Array kelcarry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    charleston, SC
    Posts
    1,849
    Hey dynamo: Methinks you have overwritten and overthought yourself on this thread. The replies, for the most part, have simplified this greatly. The presumption of imminent danger of death or great bodily injury to you and, if you add alter ego (assuming same presumption to others as if they are you), to your family and even strangers. You must know your limitations, as Dirty Harry would say, and act accordingly---you may have a firearm but you are not the police and probably not trained enough or even appreciate your limitations gunwise and law-wise to get involved, unless it is your life that is in danger. Getting away from a situation and being a good witness come to mind.

  8. #67
    VIP Member Array farronwolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,766
    Quote Originally Posted by hamlet View Post
    The law's pretty clear on what you are doing in self-defense in general: attempting to stop an attack using an equal degree of force as the attack itself in order to do accomplish this. In other words, the response has to be commensurate with the attack. So when the attack is lethal you are allowed to use lethal means to stop that attack. Once the attack is done, so are you. Continuing on is beyond the law's allowance.

    That's the best yardstick for anyone's response to any attack: not too little, not too much.
    Of course it depends on where one lives. Texas really believes in property rights and allows for you to pursue the bad guy for your property, even with deadly force in some instances.
    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

  9. #68
    Member Array MTBSW's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    South Park CO
    Posts
    43
    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.
    Not a flame but I didn't think there was an 'off duty.' Thanks for giving me a new perspective.
    Wot part of 'public servant' don't they understand!


  10. #69
    Senior Member Array GreyGhost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    central florida
    Posts
    903
    Protecting my family and myself is my first priority. All else is secondary. If I can direct others to a safe exit I will. But, I am not morally or legally required to "take on the bad guys". Nor am I trained or equipped to handle a situation like this. Handgun vs rifle is not a good situation to be in. Especially if I don't have the rifle!
    Question Everything!

  11. #70
    VIP Member Array JDE101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    6,344
    My "moral obligation" is to me and my family. Everything else is way down the priority list. I'm not a LEO, nor a superhero. I'm not saying I wouldn't take action against an active shooter if the situation arose, but family definitely comes first! Second is to call 911 and be prepared to be a good witness. Third is take action, but certainly not go "hunting" the BG.
    Mjodr likes this.
    Live to ride, ride to live. Harley Road King And keep a .45 handy Kimber Custom TLE II

  12. #71
    VIP Member Array 9MMare's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Outside Seattle, WA
    Posts
    3,309
    OK, well, I disagree with Mitchell CT.

    I will shoot to stop. Period. When the attack STOPS, I will stop defending myself. If I must use my gun in self defense *I do not have any goal in mind but to stop the attack.* Killing them may be the result, but if that attack stops BEFORE they're dead or immobile, then I will stop shooting. If I wing their ear, they freak out, and lay down on the ground without their weapon, I have stopped the attack and I stop shooting. (Of course, I made a poor shot to begin with, as I wouldnt have been aiming for the ear).

    Which leads me to...I would have been aiming for COM....shooting for the medically/statistically (shooting accuracy odds) proven area most likely to drop an attacker. I have *no intentions of wounding or presenting less effective shots* but my aim is to stop the attack.

    It's not semantics, because the actions of the attacker determine MY actions. If he/she stops, I stop. If it results in their death, so be it. That is the risk they undertook attacking me, but my only interest is in protecting ME. And to be honest, if they dont die, I have a better chance of keeping my house.
    CaveTroll likes this.
    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)

  13. #72
    Member Array Backnblack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    285
    Quote Originally Posted by dynamo55b View Post
    ? Can they prosecute you for "hunting" the gun men in order to stop them from shooting others in line of fire?
    I would refrain from any "hunting" and unless it's My problem, I would remove myself and any loved ones to safety.

    HTC Thunderbolt....4G Lightning Speed

  14. #73
    Ex Member Array hamlet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    new york
    Posts
    1,291
    "Hunting the man" is probably illegal, since no one's life is in imminent danger at this moment that you know of with your act the sole way to save a life - and by extension you could respond to any report on a scanner of a violent incident by jumping in your car and racing to the scene in case the cops aren't there yet.

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    But there's the Law of Unintended Consequences always at work - and the great misjudgment to believe our good intents will produce the imagined good results. But they are imagined. ANYTHING can and does happen once you act.

    As well as saving lives as a result you could:

    -be mistaken by the arriving police as a shooter walking or sneaking around with your gun and be killed. Your family and you lose you.
    -You could find the shooter, fire and miss, hitting shoppers you haven't seen - (you point out glass windows all over the place).
    -You could interrupt a sure shot a police sniper has by moving into the line of fire; he can't shoot, the shooter gets away and kills 5 people later
    -you could trip and fall and your gun go off into your chest
    -you get killed by the shooter - defeating your purpose
    -you could shoot the wrong person -
    -you could cause mayhem and general fire from the shooter because he freaks when he hears you fire - (which misses him)
    -you could cause mayhem and general fire from the shooter because he freaks when he hears you fire which wounds him.
    -you could shoot a cop that's undercover arriving with a rifle in hand
    -you could stroke out from the stress
    -you could shoot your wife who, lost leaving the store on her own, wanders into your line of fire as you fire at the shooter (and miss).

    -etc, etc, etc, etc,.................................

    Keep going, you'll fill up pages of possibilities, many bad, and never exhaust them all.

    You never know what will happen as the result of an action you take - and since here you don't have to take any but getting you and your family out and the situation is ripe with dire danger- Don't do anything else.

    My view..

  15. #74
    Member Array The Dark's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    FL
    Posts
    146
    Quote Originally Posted by 9MMare View Post
    It's not semantics, because the actions of the attacker determine MY actions. If he/she stops, I stop. If it results in their death, so be it. That is the risk they undertook attacking me, but my only interest is in protecting ME. And to be honest, if they dont die, I have a better chance of keeping my house.
    If you are referring to when I told another poster he was playing semantics - he was - by confounding shooting to stop with shooting to wound. They are not the same. It was not a response to you and I said just what you are saying - we shoot to stop - the manner in which the stop occurs is not relevant.
    "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

  16. #75
    VIP Member Array MitchellCT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    I don't post here anymore...Sorry
    Posts
    2,333
    No...I just think people who say they are shooting to stop are kidding themselves.

    The justification for the action - shooting - is either present or it is not. If it is present, the act is lawful, moral and proper.

    If the justification for the action - shooting - is not present, then your actions are those of manslaughter or murder.

    But the action remains the same. One should not put the front sight on target and press the trigger without accepting that your action is going to have a substantial chance of causing someone's death. To gloss over that lightly is wrong.

    Dismissing or sugar coating the action is wrong.

    Killing is not always a bad thing...but it is something that should be looked at squarely.

    If you don't, the aftermath is going to be something you may not be able to deal with.
    Mjodr likes this.

Page 5 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.