Would You Do It?

It's for self-defense only.

Click to expand...

In FL you can defend someone if you would have the right to defend yourself if it was happening to you. I know that is horrible paraphrasing of the law, but it is the jist of the thing.

And I honestly dont know. I like to think the answer is yes, but if all I had was my Ruger .380, and the maniac has an AR or AK, or just a Glock then I would probably not engage him, unless I was directly behind him, in which case I would go to jail.
__________________

<advocation of killing deleted by moderator>

We're all supposed to be Judge Dredd? Did you notice what the society around him was like? Carrying a gun gives you the power to decide guilt and innocence and life and death? I don't see those items anywhere in my commission, hard to imagine them anywhere in a CC permit.

How many school kids or civilians is it okay to sacrifice to make the bad guy dead instead of in jail?

<advocation of killing deleted by moderator>

"The only thing required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."

Or to promote irresponsible actions and foolish rhetoric in public.

I don't shed any tears for evildoers burning for their actions and the pain they've caused.

However, the only proper response to brutal violence in a civilian culture is to use the force necessary to stop the evildoer. If he dies, he dies. But that's not anyone's call here, to make them pay. If he lives, that's a call for the judge and jury to make, regardless of how inadequate our justice system can appear at times.
Posting irresponsible comments advocating judgmental violence by Joe Sixpack will get some young, inexperienced individual in trouble one day. And then he'll be treated no different than the evildoer he went gunning for on poor advice.

ETA: Mod, Thank you for the removal.

I apologize if I offended anyone, it was not intentional. I was quite angry about the school shooting that happened that day. But i understand that it was no excuse for poor maners. It was my post that was removed. Good luck in the future, good bye.

Actually, that's a great example and one that I was considering posting a couple days ago. One maxim shared -- in lifeguard training, no less -- was that when a person without good training (and a PFD) enters the water to retrieve a drowning person, neither comes out alive. Many are compelled to act because they can't just stand there and let someone else drown. So instead of A tragic death, TWO families mourn and suffer the loss of their loved ones, bread-winners, husbands, fathers, etc.

Click to expand...

And yet you get people like Lenny Skutnik who jumped into a freezing river to save a stranger from certain death in airplane crash. He has no training. He could have, even should have, died. And yet he still did the right thing and jumped into the freezing water. How many other people sat there and secretly though "well at least it's not me" or "I'm glad my wife's not in there" while they watch the wives of other men die from ashore.

These posts are sounding so judgmental of others.

If someone wants or decides they need to risk their life or limb for any reason, that is their choice and no one else can criticize it. It can be critiqued, or admired, or not, but that's not in the same vein as criticizing their personal choice.

It's when someone chooses a personal action that places others at risk that a problem arises.

And yet you get people like Lenny Skutnik who jumped into a freezing river to save a stranger from certain death in airplane crash. He has no training. He could have, even should have, died. And yet he still did the right thing and jumped into the freezing water. How many other people sat there and secretly though "well at least it's not me" or "I'm glad my wife's not in there" while they watch the wives of other men die from ashore.

Click to expand...

I don't know who Lenny Skutnik is, but that's a great story! Wow, how cool!

I would disagree that his choice was the right one, but I don't know anything about the circumstances and whether or not he risked leaving children and others to mourn him if he died foolishly.

But he succeeded! That sort of thing happens from time to time. Sometimes folks do something that isn't terribly "wise" and isn't likely to end well for either themselves nor the person they're trying to help -- and it works anyway. If someone gets "lucky" or finds a way to avoid the odds, then surely that was the "right" thing to do -- no doubt.

The good thing in the cases of drowning there's usually only two lives being wagered. Often, when guns are brought into the picture that isn't true.

At any rate, it is imperfectly analogous to be sure.

But if we're willing to use a gun in a public place to defend ourselves, that could also put more than just you and the criminal at ask. So that cancels that point out. The public at large is always somewhat at risk when you use a firearm again a criminal, whether you're defending yourself or other. So that point is canceled.

But the point of risking your life to save strangers, knowing full well you may die, remains.

But if we're willing to use a gun in a public place to defend ourselves, that could also put more than just you and the criminal at ask. So that cancels that point out. The public at large is always somewhat at risk when you use a firearm again a criminal, whether you're defending yourself or other. So that point is canceled.

Click to expand...

I don't see how that point is cancelled. If I MUST defend myself, I surely accept that I may risk injury to others, and usually would also expect that I'd see a reduction in that risk due to the fact that if I MUST defend myself, the attacker is quite likely very close to me, whereas in a "hunting the bad guy" scenario that is much less likely to be true.

But the point of risking your life to save strangers, knowing full well you may die, remains.

Click to expand...

Sure. That is a phenomenon that sometimes happens. As I said, many things can and should inform such a decision. It is a beautifully altruistic notion, isn't it?

Are you implying something is wrong with that?

I don't see how that point is cancelled. If I MUST defend myself, I surely accept that I may risk injury to others, and usually would also expect that I'd see a reduction in that risk due to the fact that if I MUST defend myself, the attacker is quite likely very close to me, whereas in a "hunting the bad guy" scenario that is much less likely to be true.

Click to expand...

Anything to back that up? Sounds like pure speculation to me.

Are you implying something is wrong with that?

Click to expand...

Eh...what?
Altruism? Oh, no. Not on it's face. Like charity, love, harmony and lots of other great positive humanistic principles, it has its upsides and downsides and grey areas.

But we do love to feel that we are, or would be, or someday hope to be altruistic. It's just important not to let a self-identification like that drive your actions unwisely.

Anything to back that up? Sounds like pure speculation to me.

Click to expand...

Well, considering that we're all, every one of us, discussing utterly hypothetical cases with each of us proposing and counter-proposing "what-ifs" by the bucketful, yup it sure is speculation.

Of course, you may have to defend yourself from a real and present direct threat at 50 yards. And you, conversely, may go hunting the bad guy in an active shooter situation and be able to spring upon him at a distance of 3 feet. It is a little harder to mentally generate plausible scenarios that would look like either of those, but not impossible.

And, of course, like all other possibilities we've kicked around, those distances and the implied risks to others such shots might possibly entail would have to be factored into any decision to act.

Ragnar,

Where choices in matters of life and death are concerned - one's own life, the lives of others, whatever the circumstances might be - what we are NOT going to do here is try to establish any rigid standards of what is and what is not acceptable. Individual choices are just that - individual choices.

Some people choose to carry defensive sidearms. Some do not. Those are individual choices made by putatively responsible adults. We do not try to force everyone, or any particular individual, to carry concealed if they don't wish to do so, no matter how logical the choice might appear to us. By the same token, when or how or under what circumstances a defensive sidearm is used is an individual choice, made by someone who is supposed to be a reasonable, responsible mature adult.

We are not going to browbeat people over their individual choices here. We may offer opinions, and try to provide bases for those opinions, but further than that we are not going, not here. Any statement or even implication that any decision other than one of getting involved with a defensive firearm in an uncertain situation is a mark of cowardice is simply not going to be tolerated here.

Every person shares equal responsibility to protect the lives of themselves and their loved ones. By the same token every non-felon adult shares the same level of opportunity to go armed and prepared to do what they need to do to protect themselves and their loved ones as any other adult in similar circumstances in their jurisdiction. Those are individual choices too. We are not here to dictate choices. We are here to encourage preparation through training, study and practice so we can make good decisions under demanding circumstances, and apply those decisions capably, and that is all.

The title of the thread "would you do it?", but a golfing buddy asked me after the Colorado Batman movie shootings, "could I do it?" I was not in the military & have never shot anyone, but I've recently acquired my concealed carry permit in Oklahoma. I don't my think my golfing buddy could pull the trigger to injure someone else. I believe that I could, so my answer to him was "yes, I could."

I am very aware that my permit only allows for self defense & that I don't need to be a vigilante force. As many have stated, I would use my firearm to ensure my family was safe. If I was in a mall, & was able to get my family to safety outside the mall, but heard screams & shots inside the mall but no police sirens? One of those scenarios that I hope I'm never exposed to, but I think I would break the intent of what a concealed carry permit allows me to do.

... I think I would break the intent of what a concealed carry permit allows me to do.

Click to expand...

Remember, your carry permit only allows you to CARRY the weapon in whatever places your state sets forth.

Your state's use of deadly force laws will be what determine when and why you might be deemed justified if you threaten, assault, shoot, and/or kill someone with it (or with any other weapon or your bare hands).

And, generally speaking, laws on use of deadly force do allow you to use that force in the defense of another "IF" ... and then there come the caveats.

We've discussed what some of those caveats are throughout the thread.

I have a family. If there is any type of situation, my first responsibility is to them. If, however, we are in the immediate area and the situation is a threat to them, I'll act accordingly. Whether that is moving them from the area or engaging the threat. Whatever is most likely to result in my family remaining unharmed.

Purely hypothetical, but suppose I was standing beside a man who intended to pull a pistol from his coat and start shooting. Also suppose I was a mind reader and knew this. Morally, I'd have no compunction about offing him before he acted. However, real life is never so cut and dry. There are too many variables.

Where we get into urinating contests about topics like this is when we assume everyone has the same variables as we do. This is called projection and it's responsible for more screw-ups than Laurel and Hardy. Never assume the other guy thinks like you, acts like you or has the same values as you. I've seen my own variables change in the last twenty years. Back then, I'd have been geting dumped on by some of you for saying I'd go looking for an active shooter. Armed, capable and no wife and kids. In the military and highly motivated to be the "good guy". Now I'm just another husband and father.

What i think is frustrating some in this discussion is a disconnect between the two arguments. One side is advocating acting under a strict, and even over-conservative interpretation of the law to remain in the good graces of society and avoid legal hassle. That argument may fit very well into your current life situation. The other side is arguing from a position that there's a bad person hurting people and I have the means to stop it. Morally, there is no reason not to act. That may fit with your current circumstances. Both sides have valid arguments, but presuming the other guy has your circumstances leads you to believe his reasoning is wrong, ie, different than yours. Not the case. Both are right, but not right for everyone.

I'm a cop so yes I would. I couldnt live with myself otherwise.

Since this is in Strategies, Tactics, and Training, I think the concept of bringing a handgun -- typically a compact, ccw -- to a fight against a rifle is an important point.

There are a very limited, as in one in a million, the stars would have to align perfectly, number of situations that would give the concealed carry pistol user the clear upper hand. If the shooter is wearing body armor, those odds just got even smaller.

Concealed carriers have brought their pistols to fights against active shooters with rifles and armor, and those did not end well for a variety of reasons. Tacoma mall shooting in 2005 was one, and I believe the other one I was thinking about was in Texas, not sure of the year.

So, if you're at the scene of an active shooting with your concealed carry weapon, you must ask yourself, what can you do that will do the most good?

Getting shot is not high on that list. It may be the most good under a very limited set of circumstances, but those are about as unlikely to occur as your average CC holder winning a firefight against a rifle bearing enemy who may be armored.

IMO, if you have a cool enough head to engage in a firefight with overwhelming odds against your favor, you'd be better off using that cool head to help people get out of the area in an orderly fashion and not go into a panic and create a stampede. Or in rendering first aid. Or in noting the position and details of the shooter and informing the police so their tactical team can go in with good information.

I've been there. I've done that. With no gun. I dove on him and after that, another individual assisted me to strip him of he gun.
One injury. Bouncer shot in left chest, he survived.

I agree completely that the average CCW permit holder is ill-advised to confront an assailant armed with a rifle. I would even contend that they should probably limit themselves to personal self-defense only. They have no training or experience, and possibly a host of physical impairments as well. They shoot the minimum required to keep their CCW, both rounds and score, and they carry a marginal weapon. They have no idea of how to make an approach that minimizes the attention of the shooter, and no realistic knowledge of closing distance to achieve a reasonable chance of success. They would merely increase the danger to themselves and others. Mindset, skillset, toolset - gotta have them all.

As far as a rifle vs a handgun, distance is key. At 200 yards, the rifle certainly has an advantage. That diminishes as the distance is closed. Body armor is a concern, and must be considered - but there are vulnerabilities involved with it, and many times it is not even present. Again, distance is an issue, as is position.

Rushing into a hostile-fire situation unprepared is a recipe for disaster, and yes, is very foolish. These discussions are enlightening, and that's good. My choice fits my training, experience, physical condition, and spiritual convictions - and mine don't apply to anyone but me. I'm somewhat surprised with the responses here, but it appears highly likely that in the one-in-a-million chance that I'm put in that position I will be the ONLY civilian even considering moving toward the attacker. That is much simpler than if others who I didn't know, had never trained with, and was unable to communicate/coordinate with were also moving in.

The permit to carry training in MN generally teaches that the first plan of action is leave the area and get to a safe place. Call 911 and be a good witness. I am guessing that most folks with a permit to carry do not train as much as they should, myself included. The risks are very high. Miss your mark and kill an innocent and you're going for it. Good intentions don't get you many points in court. Hard to answer the OP question - it really depends on what is happening at the time... I am not a coward and don't mind taking risk but I really don't know where my line is.