[yzguy]

I was watching something on the Discovery channel that was showing Police shooting situations. One stood out to me and made me think.

2 guys go in to rob a bank. The come out covered with body armor (probably at least 2 vests, stuff on their arms, and legs also). Then go to the trunk and pull out full auto AK's and pretty much start shooting anything that moves. Cops by now surround them and have hit them several times, but not slowed them down. The two guys start feeling invincible and one slowly drives while the other walks next to the car with the door open firing and reloading. By now several good guys and innocents have been hit and the bad guys have not slowed down.

Then they show someone who lived 2 blocks away from the bank who says he is just watching this live on tv as they walk closer to his house (bringing the gun fire to his door step).

That made me wonder, if I knew it was coming like that, would I pull out a bolt action (or what ever), go on my roof (so I knew it was a downward angle and it would only hit the pavement if I went through him or missed) and take the shot? or just let the police handle it? Or leave?

oh and they also mentioned that the police were running out of ammo (although I'm sure the guy at home did not know that at the time) and that they did not have any rifles immediately available to them, only handguns (not sure about shotguns), and the whole thing lasted 20-30 min.

BTW it ended with the guy that was doing the shooting, shooting himself in the head even though he had several wounds that would have eventually killed him. But he never slowed down, or even appeared injured, the driver was caught.

[cheygriz]

If you could take the shot from inside, where you remain unseen, I would probably do it.

But remember, if the police see you with a gun in your hand, they will shoot you. The roof would be bad idea.

[diyj98]

The smart thing would be to let the police handle it. It could save you expensive legal bills defending your actions or even your life.

[boing]

Or it could cost you your life, or the lives of your family or neighbors, if you sit by twiddling your thumbs while a couple of sociopaths riddle your neighborhood with bullets. Don't worry, the police will protect you. ;)

Agreed that going outside would be highly risky, especially with helicopters on scene. It would take a very special set of circumstances for me to know that my intervention would be doing more good that harm.

If I was watching it live on TV, and they were headed for my house, I'd be ready.

Now, where's my ghillie suit...? :D

[Airwolf]

Interesting scenario. Really makes one think.

My gut level instinct is, if I could take the shot from an unseen position and no chance of hitting anything other than the BG and a good backstop I probably would.

Given the situation you describe where the cops are totally outgunned and you have a BG that is a clear and lethal menace to everyone in range your duty as a citizen takes precedent, IMHO.

Yes, there would be fallout to deal with, but under the described scenario I think the cops, DA and government in general would try and keep a lid on things. The last thing they want to do is make Joe-Sixpack wonder if they are capable of doing their jobs.

On the other hand if this took place in a city that was openly hostile toward gun-owners (Chicago, LA, etc…) I’d say evade and escape. If you were pinned down I would only return fire when it became perfectly obvious that your position is taking hits and your life is in immediate danger. I wouldn’t allow myself to be wounded or die just because the cops didn't have the hardware to handle the situation and I did.

[Correia]

I would shoot them.

Most likely with my FAL that I keep handy.

And where does this massive non stop fear of lawyers come from. I keep seeing it over and over in these "what if" threads. Sure lawyers are evil, but there are farther down my list of concerns than a pair of maniacs shooting up the neighborhood and the local police. I happen to like my local police thank you very much.

[444]

I have read countless threads on these boards about every possible defense senario and I usually choose not to take part. But in this case my answer is yes. If I understood what was going on, I would shoot the guy in the head without a second thought. I wouldn't be worried in the least about "expensive legal bills defending your actions or even your life." Maybe if I lived in occupied territory, but here I very seriously doubt that I would be defending anything. Two sociopaths have robbed a bank, and are in the process of committing mass murder with police officers down. No questions asked. I would not try to develop some elaborate plan, I would walk out on the porch and shoot the guy outside the car in the head (easy shot). I wouldn't worry about hiding, camoflage, cover, defending my own life or any of that.

[HerbG]

The best answer to your question is:

1) The officers who were present on the scene after the two bad guys were shot and out of action are/were being sued by one of the crook's families for failing to render timely medical care and letting their loved one die of his wounds!

2) At least one police officer is suing one of the gun manufacters who produced one of the guns used by the bad guys.

If YOU had been the one who fired the fatal shot, you would be squarely in the middle of this ridiculous mess! Unless the bad guys posed an immediate threat to you and your family and you had no other option, you would end up in jail! You have to remember this happened in California - not some place where common sense prevails!

[cisco]

In the real world you never, never want to deal with cops, or lawyers, grand juries, etc. Unless the life of your family or yourself is in a right now last resort situation let the cops deal with it. If you do decide to do something like this I suggest you fess up immediately and then keep your mouth shut until you can get a lawyer. If the cops don't get you the family of the guy or gal you shot probably will. If you own anything be prepared to lose it all if they win and with todays juries they just might. If you do shoot someone, for any reason, secure your weapon. When the cops arrive they may not ask questions if you are standing there with a rifle or handgun. They are not your friend at that point. They do not know who you are and with a dead body laying in the street with you standing over it with a gun, you just painted a big bullseye on yourself. In that case the cops win and you lost. Don't do it for anyone other than yourself or your family. You and family are the only ones that count. Let everyone else take care of themselves or let the cops do it for them. You will keep out of mucho trouble and maybe can still own a firearms and your home. Don't do it!!!!

[six 4 sure]

I believe you are talking about the Northridge Bank Robbery that happened a few years ago. The shootout was similar to the one in the movie Heat.

The police were outgunned and even "borrowed" AR15's from a local store during the shootout.

I'm not sure what I'd do. First instinct would be to defend myself. I would be concerned about the police thinking I was involved, if I popped out of the house with a rifle.

However, didn't locals show up and offer assistance during the shootings form the clock tower in Texas? Of course the political climate was a little different then.

Six

[yzguy]

yes I think that is the same one, they went to a local gun shop and "borrowed" ammo and guns.

I'm still not 100% sure what I would do...

on one hand if I were to go to the back of my house and wait, he will probably not come in, or get a bullet to make it that far.... and I know I don't have to worry about lawyers or police messing with me.

but on the other hand how many more will he kill between the time I could stop him, and the time the cops can?? Could you live with the fact that you could have stopped him at the end of your street but when he made it down to yours a friend and neighbor was shot and killed (maybe unknowingly driving home) because you wanted to protect you stuff??

it is a pretty bad state of the legal system such that even in such a clear cut case one has to think of the legal ramifications before considering doing the correct thing...

I said the roof because the best back stop I could think of was the ground (I know even that could deflect because of angle..). I was thinking the first choice of rifle would be a decent caliber and the cars in the area may not stop it, and I would not want to chance going through the bad guy and a cop behind him. Because the cops were pretty much surrounding him taking cover (so you could not see them) the only clear shot would be down into the middle of the "cop circle".

and for the people who would just wait it out, think about this:
when his heading your way say 5-10 houses down, you have the opportunity to take 1 shot and stop it all in a situation where he is not looking at you, or has much of a chance of hitting you with an AK (he was not even aiming much, not to mention he is more worried about the closer cops he can see), or you could wait to see if he decided he wanted to hold up in your house and then he was in close quarters with you (giving you his full undivided attention) where the full auto ak will have more of an advantage...

If I were to take it, I'm sure it would be immediately followed by laying my rifle on the ground (after clearing it) and me laying on the ground face down a few feet from it (out of reach) waiting for the police (to make sure I was not mistakenly shot).

[Pappy John]

Like Cheygriz said, if you could make the shot from inside where you wouldn't be exposed to the BG's fire or mistaken for another BG by police, I'd take the shot. Window open just a couple of inches and shoot from as far from the window as I could manage. Given the noise and confusion of that incident the best aftermath might be to clean your weapon and keep your mouth shut. They might never figure out where the bullet that stopped the BG came from. I'd certainly not volunteer the information.

[CWL]

How do you know what is going on? How do you know who is the BG?

The BGs were dressed in black fatigues & looked just like police SWAT/Tactical operators.

On-site TV reporters videotaping the firefight thought that the BGs were cops and were showing footage of them with commentary that they were police actively engaging bank robbers. One TV crew was receiving fire & didn't know where it was coming from because they thought the BG across the street was a cop.

In this confusion, you want to shoot someone?

[Soap]

No.

But when my life is actually in danger: Yes, but only if I couldn't evade the danger first.

[Chris Rhines]

Ke-rist no!

- My life is not directly in danger, assuming I have a place outside the line of fire.
- The BGs are armored up and not shy about hosing down anything that attracts their attention.
- Lots of no-shoots (cops, non-coms) around.
- Target identification would be difficult at best.
- The cops are probably twitchy, and would react poorly to me showing up with the FAL.

If you would jump into a situation like that, you really need to sit down and think things through for a while.

I'd go hide in the basement, thanks.

- Chris

[Chipperman]

CWL is right. The footage they show now is after the fact. They have sorted out what was going on and know who was who. In the heat of the action, nobody was sure what was happening initially.
I'd get weapons ready and stay behind my closed doors. (My home is my Castle)

If I knew for sure who the BG was and could take a clean head shot with no risk to anyone else, then maybe...

[DJJ]

It's tempting just to say yes, I'd shut off the BG with one shot, but...

On the one hand, you're setting yourself up for a lot of grief. On the other hand, if he's walking down the street toward your house, hosing rounds full-auto, haphazardly, you ARE protecting your life (how many people have bullet-proof exterior walls? Not me).

So I suppose I'd grab the scope-sighted .30-06, put on the electronic earmuffs, and hunker down where I could see the action outside and the TV, AND get a good rest for a shot, BUT was out-of-sight and protected from his rounds (all that would be a real trick in itself), and wait. Only if it looked like the fire was about to come my way would I think about taking a shot. I tend to agree with Pappy John that not only would they have trouble figuring out where the shot came from, they might not be real inclined to try.

I think about the "cost-benefit ratio": there are already hundreds of bullets flying; if one well-placed one can prevent hundreds more from being launched, I'd say it's a bargain (note that I do NOT agree with the antis' use of this logic in the form of "if it saves just one life", because in that case, the costs aren't being considered).

As far as not being able to tell BG from cop, cops in the US typically don't use AKs, they don't pace back and forth out in the open, spraying rounds in various directions in frustration (obvious body language from the guy on foot), and they don't drive Toyota Tercels (remember, you can see all this from the overhead shot on TV).

[yzguy]

I do agree that in the moment it might have been a bit more difficult to tell who was who, but I'm pretty sure it was pretty obvious to anyone paying attention to the situation and not the camera (we all know the media people are not the brightest).

I'm not sure I'd try to hide the fact I did it because it would get enough media coverage that they would have to find you (even if they did not care or want to)... Then it would look as if you had something to hide.

[444]

"How do you know what is going on?"
"Then they show someone who lived 2 blocks away from the bank who says he is just watching this live on tv as they walk closer to his house "
" How do you know who is the BG?" :confused:
That would be the guys with the AKs walking down the street shooting civilians. The ones that the police are shooting at. The ones that are shooting back at the police.


The thing that always tickled me about the actual incident is that the police went in to a gun shop and took some rifles to use.
They just assumed that they were sighted in.

Another thing about this senario is that I wouldn't nessessarily take a head shot. I have other options. Like .30-06 AP, or a solid out of my .338 Win Mag.

Again, as I said in my first post; if this happened to me, it wouldn't be taking place in kalifornia.

[ShaiVong]

Just slide that ole .925" 10/22 bull barrel out of a window, wait for him to unload a clip on full auto, and shoot the bugger in the eye! Use subsonic and they wont even know where it came from under all the other repeats!

What? Me? No officer, I don't own a .22 rifle!

[thumbtack]

I would run like hell, I don't normally carry a rifle with me, and I prefer to stay out of gun battles.

Edited: I misunderstood the thread, if this was in my neighborhood then yes I would try to take them down. Initially I was thinking that this was occurring out and about town, and I rarely has a rifle with me.

[TargetShooter2]

Hello,

if you dont have a problem taking a life , I would Take the shot ,
one round fired centered in the head or neck would of done this ,
and end the operation. those two men had 2 full autos that was brought into the US , 1 HK, 1 AK, and if i remember right a converted Ar15 to full auto. you would of thought with all of the rounds fired that more life would of been lost that day .

TS2

[El Tejon]

Target, thank goodness the BGs were on full auto that day and thus did not hit much. Hand-held full auto is only effective in movies where a lot of BGs get their training. If they would have aimed and pressed instead of pointed and mashed there would be a lot of dead cops in LA-LA land.

Shai, huh? full auto 10/22 in SoCal? Clip? ***? You don't think the ME can determine where the shots were from? Huh?

No reason to interject yourself into a fight where things can go horribly wrong. Best indicia of good training is avoidance.

[El Rojo]

I concur, the local SWAT guys usually don't have full auto AKs and shoot at fellow officers as they pull up in their police cars. You guys do what you want, but if I see someone else in immenient danger and I have a reasonable fear that they are about to be killed or harmed by a criminal committing a felony, the law is on my side and I would center punch em with the Garand or M1A. Body armor is fine and dandy when they are shooting 9mms at you from 100 yards away. 150 gr .308 caliber bullet going about 2500-2700 FPS? Body armor will lose that battle. If I saw it coming my way, hell yeah I would shoot them. I live in the PRK too. And if they tried to sue me, so be it. If the media hounded me, so be it. I see it as an excellent opportunity to demonstrate what law-abiding citizens can do against armed thugs. I will be the 2nd Amendment's poster child if some of you won't.

[Navy joe]

If she was still alive today Kitty Genovese would be proud of a lot of you. Run and hide, somebody else will take care of the bad things outside. Even if I ran into a totally corrupt legal system I'd rather live in jail than live knowing I could have stopped something that killed many people and ruined many families. I'd rather be broke from legal bills than say "if only" And no, before you all jump me I don't look for trouble, never have. Sometimes it finds you. Then what?

[Byron Quick]

I'm with El Rojo here but it's easier for me...I live in Georgia and the cops would give me a parade. I DO carry a HK91. I'm not just willing to defend myself. I'm willing to defend you.

And, yes, sometimes trouble finds you. I was raised by a man who faced it foursquare and spit in its eye. I steer by his compass.

[redneck]

To keep it short
If I came to find people advancing towards my house shooting everything in sight, I would shoot them.

[yzguy]

Yeah, I was thinking that also about the borrowed rifles.... that 1 2 or 3 shots it takes you to figure out which way the sites are off at that distance instantly makes you a target, and now you don't get the option of a calm slow shot....

Just think of a place where law abiding armed citizens could and would without fear stop something like this, not to mention maybe about every other person being armed.... how long would this have lasted?? Then would the BG's have even tried?? Imagine citizens and police joining together to double or triple the fire power concentrated on them.... ahhh... if only ..... (ok, I'll wake up now)

[Watchman]

Easy question...

I would check in 10-8 and tell dispatch my position and the fact that I was about to engage the shooters.

I would then uncase my .50 BMG and see exactly how well the armour on them worked.

End of the problem....

[goon]

Just the fact that there were a couple of jerks coming down the street just killing people indiscriminately would be enough to make me go get one of my 308's, get to the prone, and promptly pop them both. First, I would take the one in the car. If he saw his buddy get hit, he might just drive off. No way I would let that happen. Factor in that they are advancing toward my neighborhood, and I would have killed them for sure.
If I came up on any situation where the police were being mutilated (barring that old gun confiscation SHTF scenario) I would assist them in any way possible.
I have thought about this before, as I do carry most of the time.
I have already decided that in the event of a robbery, I would just let them go on with their business. If I were to open up in a convenience store, then they would feel the need to as well.
Logic suggests that the more bullets you have flying around, the more likely someone is to get hit with one. So as long as they are just there for the money and are acting calm and rational, they would just walk right past me and my SIG.
But firing an AK in alll directions is not generally a sign of rational, calm behavior, so I would have taken the shot(s), then immediately surrendered to the police.
I would rather take my chances in court, (especially here in redneckville) than try to explain my cowardice to the creator when that day comes. Imagine that conversation.
"How come you just stood there and watched those evil men kill innocent people?"
" Errr....Uhhhh... Well, you see, Lord, I was afraid of the lawyers."

[megatronrules]

All good points here. It was the North Hollywood robbery shootout i belive. Its been a while. Those scumbags had a few AK's,at least one HK91 and at least one AR-15 with a drum mag. They also had 2 vest on with truama plates, plus leg and arm kevlar padding. All in all sick but prepared scumbags. If they were coming toward my house? I dont know what I would do, i wasnt there. I think i would have to do something. They were shooting at cops even after they were down and no longer returning fire. Thats just nuts. They also hit many other non LEO's. If you put a round into one of them, you might be called a hero or a gun nut who shot a poor scumbag criminal:D Depends where you live. In Cali. ? They would sue you into Bankruaptcy :D The good news is that you can re-establish you're credit and the scumbag is dead forever:neener:
Seriously though. The best thing to do sometimes is watch you're own yard. You cant save the world. Its also true that the crooks looked like SWAT. The clothing was very similar. So how can you be sure? SWAT doesnt use AK's to my knowledge, but still......

The media makes me laugh though people. They deplore guns, gun owners and violence,yet they air a shootout live. Hypocrits? no? :barf:

I think they said something completely stupid too, like..
Why dont those men give up?:p Come on, they robbed a bank and look like the Michelin man cause of their armor. I dont think surrender was in their thoughts. Nothing worse than reporters asking stupid questions. These are college educated people mind you:rolleyes: Then again Im a young man what do I know ;)
Later all.

[Jedi_7.62]

Add this to the scenario waht if you had kids playing in the front yard or down the street at a friends house, people in your heighborhood that you care about not just people who happen to live near you, I'm talking family type people.

Would you then?

I'd take the shot from a window and hope later that teir was sanity in the legal system.

I however do not believe in sitting around and letting someone else handle my problems. I believe if you are not prepared to do something for yourself how can you expect someone else to do it for you.

If you are not prepared to take a life you should seriously reflect on why you have guns.

[ojibweindian]

If they werwe near my house and getting closer, I'd probably take the shot.

[H&Hhunter]

By the time the good guys figured out why the two perps just went sleepy sleepy I'd be recasing my .375H&H and putting my 300grain monolithic solids back into the box.

And if anyone in in the PRK has a problem with that well.....They have my permission to call Hillary and expulse all of their ill will.In the mean time I will continue to to live and think as a free man.

And may all of your enemys be on full auto.

[natedog]

A good motto to live by....

Don't trouble trouble unless trouble troubles you first.

[OF]

Keeping the scenario simple, as all these "what-if's" need to be, and assuming we know who the bad guys are and we have a shot we can make safely:

Of course you take the shot. How could you live with yourself if you didn't?

- Gabe

[Chris Rhines]

How could you live with yourself if you didn't? ??? I've always wondered about this question. If I did the smart thing and stayed out of the fight, I seriously doubt I'd have any trouble sleeping at night. Why do you think anyone would have a problem living with themselves otherwise?

- Chris

[444]

"Why do you think anyone would have a problem living with themselves otherwise?"

Well at the most basic level it boils down to the fact that someone might have been needlessly killed when you had the chance to prevent it. Then we get into the whole golden rule thing; Do unto others as you would have others do unto you. If you were pinned down and outgunned, or if you were simply an innocent bysander in the wrong place at the wrong time, or you were wounded would you want someone to help you out or would you thank them later for not getting involved (assuming you lived). On a deeper level, our government was founded on the principal that no man has more power or rights than the next man. We hire the police to do their job, but they wern't intended to have power that we the common people don't. In this country we are all supposed to be on the same team. We are supposed to work torwards a common good. Just because one man is a police officer and you are not doesn't mean that you have no obligation to perform his duties if the need arises. Then we get into the whole argument for personal self defense; are you willing to let someone else do the dirty work for you ? Are you willing to do nothing and expect someone else to shoulder the burden. Are you willing to sit safe and sound and watch other people die because you are unwilling to lend a hand in their moment of need ?

[Navy joe]

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=9174

Now how far away from this is the "it's not my fight philosophy" Nobody is advocating being your own one man vigilante justice squad, but why carry a gun if it's just to defend you and your family? What other plan is there? Call 911 and say "hey there's a guy out here shooting cops" ??? I'd think they would already know. Being in an independent country means sometimes not having someone else to come take care of all your problems. A free people should protect and care for each other as much as possible.

[Soap]

Navy Joe- The difference in the North Hollywood shootout and the incident in that thread is huge.

You guys are telling me that you would shoot OVER THE HEADS of a sizeable number of cops (at least 30) that are engaging two gunmen? Personally, I think its a bad practice to shoot over the heads of people who already have enough to worry about without having to think about those strange high powered rifle sounds coming from their six. If the police requested my help (or I got their clearance to help), I surely would. But otherwise, there are already enough variables for the police here, don't add another.

To put the situation in perspective: There are 4 squads of U.S. Army personell engaging 4 Taliban in Afghanistan. You are a local Afghani tribesman who is simpathetic to the U.S. cause and you can get into the fray, would you want to jump your Afghan-looking self into a gunfight with a bunch of U.S. soldiers that don't know you from Adam?

[El Rojo]

There were people everywhere. Detectives, undercover, you name it. If you were shooting directly over the head of some officer to shoot at the bad guys, then he might turn around and think you were shooting at him. Odds are if the guy is coming down the street, the cop is not going to be standout out on the sidewalk without cover while the badguys walk/drive by. Just shoot him from a window or from around the corner of you house and be done with it.

Daniel your taliban example is extremely weak. In a country that has a distinctly different population than your military forces, you might not notice the difference between friendly turban clad, AK-47 toting soldiers from the enemy. In Los Angeles where there are two guys going down the street shooting the place up while wearing body armor and using fully automatic weapons, the sight of a guy in regular clothes and a M1 Garand, M1A, scoped bolt action rifle, or even an AR-15, peaking out the window of a residence is not going to be an instant reason to play paranoid cop and take your focus off the full-auto bank robbers and shoot up the guy in the window of his house. I would suspect if anything the officer might actually yell at you to shoot or point out where they are at.

If you want to keep coming up with far out reasons not to get involved, go for it. They will continue to be dismissed. Just saying, "I wouldn't want to get mixed up in it." would be a more defensible position.

[Byron Quick]

If I did the smart thing and stayed out of the fight, I seriously doubt I'd have any trouble sleeping at night. Why do you think anyone would have a problem living with themselves otherwise?


Chris, a couple of questions: 1) At least thirty-eight people stayed out of Kitty Genovese's fight(one finally got up the nerve to call the cops after she was dead)...did they do the smart thing, in your opinion? And if it was the smart thing, do you honestly believe they haven't had trouble sleeping at night? The ones who were there that night, didn't lift a finger to help, sleep well, and have no problem living with themselves are nothing but scum. If you've never heard of her, check out this link, it's short: http://www.newsday.com/extras/lihistory/8/hs818a.htm

I walked into a house one dark night. Bloodcurdling screams were coming from it. I was a total stranger to all within. I found a elderly man sitting in a chair being savagely beaten by a young man. Thick ropes of blood were drooling down from his mouth and nose to pool in his lap. He was too weak to move and just sat as the punk struck him again and again. I gave that young man a choice: quit beating the old man or die-right here, right now. Did I risk my life that night? I think I did. Was it my fight? Yes, it was. Would I do it again? Anytime. Without a second thought.

Another night, I was at a party when this real tough guy decided that he needed to break his girl friend's nose. Not being satisfied with that, he attempted further facial alterations. I stopped him and escorted him outside on his tip toes. He wanted to fight me when I released him. I told him that if he laid one finger on me that I would shoot him dead. I meant it. Suddenly, he wasn't so eager to fight.

I'll avoid trouble any way I can. I will run. I have run on numerous occasions. I will not avoid trouble if doing so means leaving innocents too weak to defend themselves to deal with trouble on their own.

[Art Eatman]

Looks to me that this is a situation for some common sense:

If you can make the shot--not "take", but "make"--without endangering yourself or other innocents, do it.

If you could endanger yourself because of police mis-identification, you're better off keeping out of the deal. If there are high odds of a miss causing injury or death to an innocent bystander or a cop, keep out of the deal.

To me, there is no moral issue about killing this thread's sort of Bad Guy. My decision-making has to do with the physical situation, what I've called common sense.

Art

[Soap]

El Rojo- If I were a police officer engaging two people and there was someone in plain clothes armed with a rifle on my six and firing in my direction, I would immediately consider them a threat. IMHO, the officers will not be able to tell you apart from the other shooters. Any other interpretation is extremely full of optimism. It doesn't matter what the citizen is armed with or what he is wearing, you would be shooting in the general direction of the police, hence, you would be viewed as a threat.

Art- I would completely agree. But in the case of the North Hollyweird shootout, one would have a sizeable chance of being mis-identified as a threat.

[trapshooter]

"Hey, Officer! I have this rifle. I'm very good with it. Deputize me and this fight's over. What have you got to lose? Thank you."


BOOM!


BOOM!

"You're welcome."

[goon]

It all has to do with being a citizen, not an onlooker. I own guns because I like to shoot, but I also own them because they can be used to shoot people who need to be shot. Those two guys shooting at the cops needed to be shot.
If I could take the shot from a fair distance, say 150 or so yards, I would have definitely taken it. I can hit pretty well at 100 yards, so a man sized target is way bigger than a guy with a scoped rifle really needs. Keeping your distance ensures that the police have time to settle down before they figure out what happened. That way, you don't get shot by the cops.
But even if they did see you shooting, how would the know that you weren't off duty SWAT or something that was responding to the fight?
Think about it. You got FA fire zipping through your patrol car. You are cowering behind the engine block and the front tire, praying that they stop the 7.62x39mm bullets that are getting slung at you. Many of us have heard FA fire on MG ranges or other places, and let me tell you, it is loud. After the first burst, you just want to get your earplugs in. These cops are getting hammered with it. Their buddies are laying around bleeding and they can't get to them. The only thing they can hear is bullets slamming into their cars, and the characteristic stacatto report of the AK. Suddenly, the AK fire stops. Then the driver of the car slumps forward, and the car comes to rest against a shot up police cruiser.
"What happened?"
"We must have got them."
Remember, they have been shooting at them too.
Even if they did find you after you shot the bad guys, you just saved their asses.
Would you shoot down the planes that just provided you with air support?

[Marcus]

If your neighborhood was in the path of a forrest fire would you help dig firebrakes? If your neighborhood was in danger of flooding would you help fill sandbags? If we were at war and being bombed would you help build bomb shelters? To me 2 AK wielding body armored whackos killing cops and pedestrians (cops are civilians too,they`re not the military police at least not yet) presents the same type of threat and should be handled in the same way. If you can help and do so without any likelyhood of causing more harm to your loved ones or neighbors you should.
The root of the problem is being ignored though. The cops weren`t well trained enough to deal with the problem and they handled it poorly. If they had all been taught the Mozambique drill you`d think at least one or two would remember it under stress. A couple shots a year on a sterile range isn`t enough for LEOs to deal with scenarios like this. IMO a small group of avid shooters determined to protect their families and community would have faired much better in this case. Check your history,in WW2 one of the main reasons they didn`t try and invade the US was that as Admiral Yamamoto said "There`s a rifle behind every blade of grass." He wasn`t talking about the army,he was more concerned with the armed civilians. Course these days we`ve gone from being a country of riflemen to a country of rifles.... Marcus

[Art Eatman]

The problem with a thread of this sort is that there ain't no "One size fits all." We can beat it to death with the "what if" stuff, of course.

Seems to me the real issue is whether you would take part at all; whether your own safety is at issue, and whether your action could endanger others.

I don't mind doing my duty, or being some sort of good, useful citizen. I couldn't stand by and give no consideration to ending a bad deal. Mainly, though, I wanna live through it.

:), Art

[yzguy]

ok, I see all this talk about being identified as a threat..... thus the lay down the rifle, and lay face down on the ground (what I said earlier). How could you possibly be thought of as a threat?!?!? Now if you kept the rifle pointed in their direction, I could see it, but come on just don't be stupid....

I also thought about the asking for permission, or offering assistance, but you will have to go out of your house to get even close to the officers (which by the way are trying to keep civilians back and out of this probably) which will put you closer to the fire (thus more in danger). Then assuming you even get that close, I seriously doubt anyone in charge would even talk to you at all, much less give you any kind of permission. Also this method would take at least 2 trips to them because I would not walk up with the rifle in hand, thus loosing valuable time. I don't think the asking for permission thing would fly...

[Watchman]

Sometimes its easier to ask for Forgivness than it is to ask for Permission.

Shoot the SOB and let the rough end drag...:what:

[duckfoot]

all enemies foreign and domestic

SHOOT!!

[Cosmoline]

Depends. If it's like the North Hollywood shootout from a few years back, they probably aren't hitting squat, so in that case I might risk it. A fortiori with short guns. But if they're using proper long guns and people actually are getting offed right and left, I'd never risk it.

[Chris Rhines]

Various responses:

444 -

Well at the most basic level it boils down to the fact that someone might have been needlessly killed when you had the chance to prevent it. Get ready to be offended. Ready? Okay. I care very little about random people other than my family and friends. Harsh, but that's the way it is. Not that I enjoy seeing people get needlessly killed, but going out and stopping it from happening is not a priority for me (particularly when my life and freedom would be placed at risk by doing so.)

If you were pinned down and outgunned, or if you were simply an innocent bysander in the wrong place at the wrong time, or you were wounded would you want someone to help you out or would you thank them later for not getting involved (assuming you lived). Yes, if someone dragged my butt out of the line of fire, I'd be grateful. Very. But that puts me under no particular obligation to risk my life for society at large. If I wanted to do so, I'd become a cop or an EMT (or similar.)

On a deeper level, our government was founded on the principal that no man has more power or rights than the next man. We hire the police to do their job, but they wern't intended to have power that we the common people don't. I agree with this wholeheartedly. And were it the case in reality, I would probably re-evaluate my criteria for stepping into a life-threatening situation. But it isn't.

We are supposed to work torwards a common good. No. I work towards my own good. The 'common good' is of no interest to me.

Just because one man is a police officer and you are not doesn't mean that you have no obligation to perform his duties if the need arises. Quite the contrary; that's exactly what it means. If I ever voluntaraly elect to take on the responsibilities of a police officer, I'll let you know.

Then we get into the whole argument for personal self defense; are you willing to let someone else do the dirty work for you ? Right, but we're not really talking about personal self defense here, we're talking about defending other people (or 'society at large') in the absence of clear risk to yourself. If there is a threat against myself, my family, or my friends, I'll do what it takes to keep them (and me) safe. Other than that, see above.

Are you willing to sit safe and sound and watch other people die because you are unwilling to lend a hand in their moment of need ? Yeah, I am. And taking the argument to it's logical conclusion, so are you. So is everybody who sees starving kids in Bangledesh, ethnic massacres in India, deliberate political famine in Zimbabawe, and dozens of other examples of man's inhumanity on CNN, and doesn't sign up with the Army, the AID, or Doctors Without Borders. When you think about it, it's the same point at a different level.

Byron -

Chris, a couple of questions: 1) At least thirty-eight people stayed out of Kitty Genovese's fight(one finally got up the nerve to call the cops after she was dead)...did they do the smart thing, in your opinion? Tough to say after the fact, and while I'm passing familar with the Kitty Genovese case I've never heard any statements from the bystanders as to why they didn't intervene. Had I been there, I would have called the cops and reported a violent assault, but I would not have jumped into the fight.

And if it was the smart thing, do you honestly believe they haven't had trouble sleeping at night? I have no knowledge of psychology, nor have I ever been in a similar situation myself, so I can't really say. What do you think? Should the bystanders have felt guilty for not intervening? Were they ethically obligated to do something for her? Why, or why not?

I will not avoid trouble if doing so means leaving innocents too weak to defend themselves to deal with trouble on their own. And I won't lift a finger to stop you from making that choice, although I'll continue to reserve opinion on whether intervening in a fight is a smart thing to do.*

What I will not do, however, is entertain the idea that I am somehow evil (as opposed to being selfish and insensitive, which I am) because I place my life above that of the random guy on the street. Which is why I keep piping up on the subject.**

- Chris

* - Ethical considerations left aside, shooting the bad guy in the situation as described is possibly the stupidest thing that you could do (running out into the line of fire naked would be stupider, but not by much.) Reasons above.

** - That, and the vagaries of thread subjects. And that I'm just a born contrarian.

[ahenry]

We do seem to live in a wussified and sissified America; “But I can’t help somebody out, I might get hurt”. Modern America seems to be made up of people whose only concern is themselves. That attitude works great for an economic system but it’s a pretty piss-poor way to associate with your neighbors. I guess I’m a throwback to something (what I don’t know) but I would do everything within my power* to help the cops out.



*Standard caveats of not being an idiot or exacerbating the situation apply.

[Soap]

Yeah, I am. And taking the argument to it's logical conclusion, so are you. So is everybody who sees starving kids in Bangledesh, ethnic massacres in India, deliberate political famine in Zimbabawe, and dozens of other examples of man's inhumanity on CNN, and doesn't sign up with the Army, the AID, or Doctors Without Borders. When you think about it, it's the same point at a different level.

Very well said Chris.

That attitude works great for an economic system but it’s a pretty piss-poor way to associate with your neighbors.

That is very true as well.

[ahenry]

Something I forgot to mention (thanks for bringing it up again though Daniel ;) )

I don’t see the comment that Chris made (and you agreed to) as “taking the argument to its logical conclusion”. In the one hand you have people in front of you getting shot at and you have the very real potential to save some lives (be they cops or non-cops). In the other situation a person has a greatly diminished ability to help or to prevent harm. Moreover, most people do try to help situations like Chris described (through donations of both time and money). Obviously donated money or time doesn’t magically fix everything and nobody here (I don’t think) would argue that a person has to spend their entire life trying to solve somebody else’s problems. The two situations are vastly different. In one you can directly fix the immediate problem. In the other you can help alleviate some of the problems some people face.

[El Tejon]

Problem #2 is a stubborn bugger. The risk of doing more harm than good is always there. Let's see how this works in real life:

This morning in Chicago 21 people died as a bouncer used pepper spray to intrevene in a scuffle on the dance floor. He was "helping out" after the fact. The scuffle purportedly between 2 young women was over. He did not know the players or what was going on, but he rushed right in.

21 people were crushed to death. 21 families lost loved ones because someone thought that because he could "help" out, he should "help" out and 21 people paid the ultimate price because some macho man bouncer did not want to seem sissy.:(

[ahenry]

el tejon,

Go back to my first post in this thread. See that little asterisk with the short sentence? Did you bother reading it, or were you just too excited to have an opportunity to try and lambaste somebody and call them “batman” again? I do not know if the bouncer made a good call or not given what information he had available (neither do you I might add). Obviously in hindsight he would have been better off not doing anything. Regardless, that situation and this situation are worlds apart. That you can’t see that is somewhat embarrassing...for yourself.




BTW, this comment you made is just plain ridiculous, “...because some macho man bouncer did not want to seem sissy.” You honestly think a bouncer sprayed two women with pepper spray because he didn’t want to look like a sissy? Obviously you haven’t met many bouncers before. :rolleyes:

[yzguy]

I would bet the women were not cooperating and he used the spray so he did not have to get physical with the women (and look like a sissy, or get sued). I don't have all the facts either, but believe this to be much more likely...

and to make this situation at all similar, the women would have to be spraying pepper spray at everyone in the crowd for 20 min before the bouncer stepped in, or that the robbers were only in a fist fight, and you stepped in with a rifle....

[Art Eatman]

Okay, okay, okay...

EZ!

:), Art

[El Tejon]

ahenry, not dissimiliar at all. From the interviews of the witnesses carried all afternoon on Chicago radio, it appears that the bouncer allegedly intrevened and used force and purportedly made the situation much worse. The same possibility chance of unintended consequences/Problem #2 could transpire here.

With every single scenario that is discussed such as this, very few bring forth the possibility that the third party's intrevention could make things far worse than what would happen. Gun shoppe "what if" scenarios always forecast a victory without any consequences.

In the real world, that is not always possible. People talk a good game about "individual responsibility", but when the unintended consequences are pointed out, they become upset and discount the others that pay the price for their actions.

Firearms project flying pieces of metal that you cannot control totally. Flying metal can make holes in people. If you need not act, do not.

[ahenry]

you need not act, do not. We disagree on what constitutes “need to act”. If you’ll refrain from calling people that choose to risk something in order to help another things like “gun shoppe warriors” and “batman” and such, then I’ll refrain from labeling what I really think those that choose not to help are.

[yzguy]

ok then, what stampede could possibly happen to injure several innocent bystanders in this event if you fire 1 or 2 rounds (in the midst of full auto fire by the BG's)??? Am I missing something here?? everyone was already running for cover (duh). So your saying that you need not act until he picks your house to hold up in, and decides that he does not need hostages (plans on killing you and yours)? or a few stray bullets wonder into your house?? If you wait that long, you have missed your easy quick stop solution....

[Chris Rhines]

ok then, what stampede could possibly happen to injure several innocent bystanders in this event if you fire 1 or 2 rounds (in the midst of full auto fire by the BG's)??? Am I missing something here?? You are indeed. Mainly, you're missing that if a cop, one either involved in the gunfight or out on the perimeter, sees a guy in plain clothes firing a rifle, he's going to think "Bad Guy!" Add in that the cop is being shot at, and probably has a weapon in his hands, and you're setting yourself up to get killed.

So your saying that you need not act until he picks your house to hold up in, and decides that he does not need hostages (plans on killing you and yours)? That may or may not be what Kirk is saying, but it is what I'm saying. More than that, I'm saying that acting before one of the gunmen presents a direct threat to you and yours would be foolhardy in the extreme.

- Chris

[El Tejon]

ahenry, you need to act when you, not the world, are in danger. If you act on behalf of others, you may hurt many others that you do not intend to, including yourself, as Chris pointed out.

BTW, Chicago radio is now reporting that allegedly other bouncers were purportedly egging on the bouncer(s) that used the pepper spray when the intrevened in the confrontation between the women. "Mace `em, mace `em good, be a man."

When we put our own feelings or emotions above rational (or even tactical) thought, others may suffer, however unintended the consequence is.

[El Rojo]

This Chicago thing has nothing to do with this situation. Nothing. A paid employee that is responsible for the safety of a club has nothing in common with a armed, innocent civilian that is watching a shooting unfold before his eyes. If you are going to come up with situations to support your cause, find some relevance. The Chicago thing would only apply if we were talking about someone with the responsibility to act, but they make the wrong decision. And by most of your comments, you are stating that you wouldn't have a responsibility to act in the shooting scenario.

As I said before, make all the excuses of why you would hide out in your house, but it is still an excuse. The easiest argument to defend would be, "I just don't feel like taking the risk." All of these other arguments are just plain baseless. Shooting at the armed robber from a window in your house is not going to make you a suspect. Running out into the street and cutting lose with your AK while wearing your tactical black mask might. Who in the heck said that is what they would do? Again, the scenario is you are at your house, the bad guys are in the street, you take the shot from your house. Where it came to play that law enforcement were all entrenched around your house and they would take their eyes off the bad guys in the street, look behind them, see you in your window aiming over their heads at the bad guys, assume you are a threat, and suddenly have the accuracy to kill you instantly where they couldn't hit the body armored men to begin with, I don't know.

So lets propose a new question. When the armed robbers come down your block, what are you going to do? Two easy choices: 1) Get involved or 2)Not get involved. If you chose not to get involved, then you have some serious tactical questions to ask yourself. Are you going to maintain obs on them as they go by your house? How are you going to do that? What part of your house offers cover to stop a 7.62 or 5.56 round from hitting you? You can't just peak out the window. You decide to peak out the window anyway so you can keep an eye on them, are you going to be armed? Afterall, there are SWAT snipers positioned all around your permiter focused on the windows waiting for that opportunity to take out the cooberators that lurk inside those residential dwellings (nevermind they should be shooting the armed robbers and ending the situation). You don't want to "appear" armed from behind your curtains. So do you hole up in a back room and hope the robbers don't seek cover in your house. Ooops. They decided to. They just broke through your front door or walked in throug the back door. I guess if you are barricaded in a bedroom you have a decent chance, I just hope no one else in the house is outside the barricaded door or that they don't shoot through the walls.

Again, I would take the shot. Why let a bad situation escalate when I can take positive measures to end it with the resources I have available? How many more people have to die because the cops are outgunned, but I am not? Am I going to go running out the door and engage them in the drive way? NO. Get on my roof? Probably not. Am I going to take a shot from a cracked window from behind the blinds? Yes. Or mabye from the corner of my house behind cover? Yes. Am I only going to take the shot if I am fairly sure I have the ability to hit the target without taking more than two or three shots or even one? Yes. If they are 600 yards down the block, you are not going to shoot them? No. If they are a couple houses down, yes.

So just stick to two answers. Either your neighborhood and your local law enforcement is valuable enough to take the risk and end the situation or they are not valuable enough to take the risk and you only act if the bad guys enter your house.

If you act on behalf of others, you may hurt many others that you do not intend to, including yourself, as Chris pointed out.So forget serving in the army. Forget being a cop. Forget being a firefighter. Don't work in a hospital. Afterall, when acting on the behalf of others, you might put yourself at risk!!! Isolationism is the key. If you ignore the problems around you, they will not affect you. Yeah that worked well in 1938 and 1939. :rolleyes:

I'm saying that acting before one of the gunmen presents a direct threat to you and yours would be foolhardy in the extreme.When they discharge firearms in my neighborhood with no regard to the safety of others, they are a "direct threat". When they maliciously attempt to take the lives of people around me, they are a "direct threat". My neighbors and my local law enforcement are mine. If I can prevent their deaths by taking the shot, I am going to take it. I won't have to explain to the neighbors why I could have stopped the shooter minutes before one of the shooters bullets paralyzed their 6 year old child who was taking cover in a back room, but I chose not because I didn't want to get involved. I won't have to pay the pension for the officer's children who responded in his squad car two blocks past my house when he is shot dead because all he had was his handgun.

I respect your decisions to act only when deemed "a threat to your safety". I also respect your decision not to live in my neighborhood, but I like that decision.

[El Tejon]

El Rojo, the law applies, even in a gun shoppe fantasy. We are not talking about the rules of war.

Police and firefighter possess statutory criminal exemptions, heightened protection in civil court and large insurance carriers. The individual citizen has none of this.

The bouncer in Chicago allegedly wanted "to help." He wanted to get involved before the "situation got out of hand." His actions allegedly brought about a situation that was far worse if he purportedly did not get involved.

If you do not need to fight, do not fight. There is a risk to fighting, why expose yourself to unnecessary risk that you need not take?

And you take the shot . . . into the SQUAT team member, through the bad guy and into the mall ninja, into the house across the street hitting your neighbor's 6 year old daughter.

If the BGs attack you, the scenario changes immensely. Anyone can get in a fight. The best indicator of good training is never having to use it.

I am thankful that I do not live in the PRK as well. Problem #2 could be far worse for you.

[El Rojo]

In Kern County I would be thanked by law enforcement and probably get a medal for taking appropriate action.

Since when in deadly encounters do the 4 rules of gun safety go out the window. If there is a "squat" member in front of the target, don't shoot. If there are little kids playing on the grass behind the target, don't shoot. Just keep coming up with the excuses not to act. All you need to say is, "It is not worth the risk for me to protect anyone but myself or anyone I deem as worthy as myself." That is all you need to say.

If the BGs attack you, the scenario changes immensely. Anyone can get in a fight. The best indicator of good training is never having to use it.I would add, "or knowing when to." Actually I would take that whole thing out altogether. I would think the best indicator of good training is winning. When people die because you did not act and you had the ability to, I wouldn't call that winning and I wouldn't call it good training. I would call that incompetence and/or cowardice.

If you do not need to fight, do not fight. There is a risk to fighting, why expose yourself to unnecessary risk that you need not take?Again another indication of isolationist lifestyle. Don't worry about trouble until you have to. Don't take risks unless you absolutely must, but even then try to find a way out of it. I respect your belief and attitude. I am just thankful our country didn't have the same attitude after Pearl Harbor. I am thankful our country shook it off after 9/11. I am thankful we still have men and women in this country that realize freedom assumes risks and requires risks and if those risks are not taken, you can easily lose those freedoms.

Again, if you want to hole up in your house, go for it. Don't offer anymore arguments, just tell us that defending anyone other than yourself or someone you deem as worthy as yourself is not worth the risk and you will not assume it. I just hope that not everyone has that same attitude and I am thankful for those that don't have that attitude and serve others even when it is "risky". I hope I can do the same if the situation requires it.

[El Tejon]

El Rojo, can't happen here? Heard this before--daily!:D If Problem #1 goes well, you very well may be given hero treatment that you reference. If not, . . . don't know but you could have problems. Understand, you may very well be within the law of defense of others, and here you have a strong argument of defense of others, but may still have problems.

Seeking a gunfight that you may avoid may not be wise. Winning is defined by not being hurt. The more you understand gunfighting the less you wish to do it.

There are no excuses only reality. I could say the same about those that seem overzealous to fight. They are simply finding excuses to exercise their Warrior Prince fantasies. Fantasies which they have not thought through or trained for (excluding the bravado in the gun shoppe), or experienced.

In light of all that could go wrong, whether Problem #1 or #2, it is far better to avoid a fight. It is not cowardice as you label it, just a recognition of reality.

At Pearl Harbor we were attacked and Germany declared war upon us and we defened ourselves by destroying Germany and Japan. We were again attacked on 9/11/01 and we will defend ourselves by killing the Barbary pirates.

Someone, with my attitude, said something about avoiding foreign entanglements once. I do not know if this is taught in government schools anymore.

[Soap]

For all of the philantrophists: When was the last time that you volunteered at the local homeless shelter? Or helped teach children how to read?

I think its a little silly that people can drive by starving people or go to the "other side of the tracks" to see children that don't have a proper winter jacket yet they claim they would risk life and limb in a gunfight...

[El Tejon]

Caring/emotions aside, Dan, my argument is that when entering into a fight, one must be aware of all possible conseqeunces, inclduing those consequences one does not intend.

As the wise man in China sez, the greatest victories are those that are won without fighting. One studies kung fu not to use kung fu (or gun fu).:D

[ahenry]

Not “the Texan”,
The more you understand gunfighting the less you wish to do it. Oblique references to your qualifications for Grand Master status as a gunfighter since you don’t ever want to be in one are tiresome. Did anybody around here ever say that they wanted to have to shoot in this situation or that they would?

Fantasies which they have not thought through or trained for (excluding the bravado in the gun shoppe), or experienced. Are you sure about that? There are a lot of people on this board that have indicated they would shoot. You think they all exemplify “gun shoppe bravado” and that they’ve never experienced anything? Are you suggesting that because you don’t wish to put yourself at any sort of risk to try and save another persons life, you are the sole possessor of wisdom, knowledge and experience? HA!

Someone, with my attitude, said something about avoiding foreign entanglements once. I do not know if this is taught in government schools anymore. You can’t avoid this situation anymore. Its upon you. Now its up to you to watch people die or face a little personal risk and try to save some lives. Obviously we know what you would pick, but don’t try to couch your decision in lofty comparisons to George Washington. Your decision and his foreign policy admonishment are not similar. Just as the Chicago situation and this one are not similar. Look, as our Red friend has repeatedly said, don’t couch your unwillingness to help another (when it poses a risk to yourself) in anything other than what it is. You aren’t superiorly trained. You aren’t more knowledgeable. You don’t have a better grasp of the risks. You just have an unwillingness to help another unless you will face no danger. Even if there are no risks, I have to wonder if you would actually help out. Take a lesson from our friend Chris, at least he is honest about why he wouldn’t help. Strangers on the street aren’t worth the risk to his life or happiness. I certainly disagree with the sentiment, but he is up front about it.

Daniel,
For all of the philantrophists: When was the last time that you volunteered at the local homeless shelter? Or helped teach children how to read?Not that it is remotely your business, but I have given time, money and more both in America and outside of America on a regular basis since I was about 15. Sometimes it was easy, sometimes it wasn’t but its still none of your business.

I think its a little silly that people can drive by starving people or go to the "other side of the tracks" to see children that don't have a proper winter jacket yet they claim they would risk life and limb in a gunfight... Poor people in America don’t get an inordinate amount of sympathy from me (excluding kids). There has never been a place like America where by dint of nothing more than some elbow grease a man or woman can rise from the depths of poverty to the highest reaches of success. By and large, those that remain in poverty are those that refuse to work. There is even a Biblical admonition to people like that...

[Soap]

ahenry- It was more of a rhetorical question as I do not really want to quanitfy people's charitable works. But since you've stated that you do make chartiable contributions to society, I would note that it is impossible for one to be able to engage in chartiable contribution 100% of the time. So therefore you must pick your battles. Personally, I feel horribly for the children born to lazy and on the dole parents. Could I go out and save all of them, even if they are before my eyes? No.

This gunfight example is already being taken care of by a few score of trained police officers, who are employed by society specifically to deal with situations like this. Jumping into this fight would simply be adding more chaos to chaos. I choose to pick my battles, and jumping into something like the North Hollyweird shootout isn't the greatest idea.

Now if the person where walking down the street with a weapon shooting people randomly (without the police there), would I take the shot? Most likely I would, Problem #2 and all.

BTW- I would also agree with the idea that people in America can transcend their social class quite readily. Also, what verses are you referring to?


El Tejon- I completely understand what you are saying. That is why I would not enter a gunfight like the NH shootout. Doing so would assuredly endanger myself and the officers...and maybe...just maybe, the gunmen. I think you're correct in stating that many people predict the easy and perfect victory. I did that once in a fistfight...and it ended with people breaking it up while I had blood running down my face due to my nearly broken nose. The other guy barely had a scratch...a real learning experience.

[Art Eatman]

Hey, look, gang, this was barely rifle-related from the git-go, and now it's gone to wandering. And a bit too personal, really...

Lots of good points made, but it looks to me like the esoteric bits of philosophy oughta re-start over in L&P.

Think about your ideas, and maybe go with something like "Public Assistance Shooting", or "Third-party Defense".

Art